Cataphora, Inc. v. Parker et al
Filing
352
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman granting 322 Motion for Attorney Fees (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
CATAPHORA INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
JERROLD SETH PARKER, et al.,)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)
No. C09-5749 BZ
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S
FEES
16
17
Plaintiff seeks an additional $ 134,500.00 in attorney’s
18
fees for 269 hours of work related to the parties’ post-trial
19
motions and both of Plaintiff’s fee motions.1
20
contend that the present motion should be denied in full due
21
to its overreaching nature.
22
to reduce the amount requested, and object to various time
23
entries submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel on the grounds that
24
the fees are neither reasonable nor necessary.2
Defendants
Alternatively, Defendants ask me
25
1
26
Plaintiff has already received $ 734,095.00 in
attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” under California
Civil Code section 1717. (Docket No. 315.)
27
2
28
Defendants do not dispute the reasonableness of the
hourly rate charged by Plaintiff’s counsel.
1
1
FEES RELATED TO DEFENDANTS’ RULE 50 MOTIONS
2
Defendants object to Plaintiff recovering additional fees
3
on the grounds that any additional recovery would be “grossly
4
excessive” in relation to the jury verdict.
5
5.)
6
opposing Plaintiff’s prior fee request, stating, as they do
7
again here, that this was a “simple brief of contract action”
8
and that an award of nearly $900,000 in fees would be
9
excessive.
10
(Def. Opp. Br. p.
Defendants made a similar argument in their brief
(Id.)
Throughout this litigation, Defendants have regularly
11
relitigated issues which I had previously determined as a
12
matter of law.
13
argued that Defendants could not be found liable for breach
14
of contract because no contract had ever been formed.
15
issue of whether there was a binding contract between the
16
parties was resolved when I denied Plaintiff’s motion for
17
summary judgment (Docket No. 83).
18
50 motions argued that Plaintiff was not entitled to lost
19
profits under the doctrines of mistake and fraud.
20
affirmative defenses were not part of the claims submitted to
21
the jury because Defendants never attempted to amend their
22
answer to include these defenses until after the close of
23
evidence (at which time I denied their request as untimely).
24
Defendants insistence on filing post-trial motions that
25
repeated arguments resolved during summary judgment or at the
26
pretrial conference unreasonably multiplied the litigation,
27
and Plaintiff cannot be faulted for incurring fees related to
28
opposing these motions.
For example, Defendants’ Rule 50 motions
But the
Likewise, Defendants’ Rule
But these
While Defendants did raise some new
2
1
issues in their Rule 50 motions, such as whether there was
2
sufficient evidence for the jury to determine the certainty of
3
Plaintiff’s lost profits, the import of the relief sought by
4
Defendants in their post-trial motions would have been to
5
eliminate the jury’s verdict and any fees claimed by
6
Plaintiff.
7
opposing these motions vigorously.
8
Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. L.A. Export Terminal,
9
Inc., 69 Cal. App. 4th 287, 304 (1999) (a defendant “cannot
10
litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the
11
time necessarily spent by the plaintiff in response.”).
12
Thus, once again, I cannot fault Plaintiff for
See, e.g., Int’l
Nevertheless, given the repetition of the arguments
13
presented in the post-trial motions, an adjustment to the
14
hours claimed by Plaintiff is warranted.
15
v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095–1096 (2000) (the amount of
16
attorneys’ fees is within the sound discretion of the trial
17
court).
18
counsel spent over 28 hours preparing for oral argument on the
19
post-trial motions.
20
(“Farrer Decl.”) Ex. D.)
21
issues had been exhausted both on summary judgment and via
22
various in limine motions, Mr. Farrer’s dedication of almost a
23
week’s worth of time to preparing for oral argument on issues
24
with which he had a great deal of familiarity seems excessive.
25
This is particularly true given that the billing records
26
suggest that at least 16 hours were used to prepare an oral
27
argument outline.
28
outline for a short hearing on motions which had been more
See PLCM Group, Inc.
For example, Defendants point out that Plaintiff’s
(See Declaration of William Webb Farrer
(Id.)
In light of the fact that these
Dedicating 16 hours to preparing an
3
1
then fully briefed, and with which counsel was very familiar,
2
seems unreasonable.
3
Mr. Farrer also billed more than 130 hours for tasks
4
related to opposing Defendants’ post-trial motions, including
5
legal research and time spent drafting the opposition brief.
6
Again, given that many of the issues briefed in the post-trial
7
motions were repetitive of issues that had come up earlier in
8
the case, 130 hours of work to oppose Defendants’ motions
9
seems excessive.
I therefore exercise my judgment and reduce
10
Plaintiff’s fee request for work performed on the Rule 50
11
motions by fifty precent, from 161 hours (see Pl. Reply Br. p.
12
1) to 80.5 hours.
13
FEES FOR UNSUCCESSFUL PREJUDGMENT INTEREST MOTION
14
Defendants argue that Plaintiff should not receive fees
15
for preparing its unsuccessful motion for prejudgement
16
interest.
17
compensation for all hours reasonably spent on the litigation
18
(see Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal. 3d 621, 639 (1982)), and
19
recovery does not necessarily hinge upon the success or
20
failure of one particular motion, Plaintiff has agreed to
21
reduce its hours by 7.7 for time spent on tasks related to its
22
unsuccessful prejudgment interest motion.3
23
p. 8.)
(Pl.’s Reply Br.
FEES FOR UNSUCCESSFUL SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
24
Defendants next argue that Plaintiff’s fee request should
25
26
While a prevailing party is normally entitled to
be reduced by 3.7 hours for time billed to unsuccessful
27
3
28
The 269 hours sought by Plaintiff factors in this
voluntary reduction.
4
1
settlement efforts.
2
to settle their disputes, and the time billed by Mr. Farrer in
3
an attempt to settle the parties’ disputes, which would have
4
vitiated any need to engage in post-trial briefing or an
5
appeal, was a worthy effort and consistent with our local
6
rules.
7
on this basis.
8
I disagree.
Parties should be encouraged
I therefore decline to reduce Plaintiff’s fee request
FEES FOR PREPARING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
9
While Defendants do not challenge Plaintiff’s request for
10
“fees on fees” (i.e., fees for time spent litigating the fees
11
motions), I find that a reduction in time is warranted.
12
Farrer spent a total of 48.2 hours “researching and preparing
13
[the instant motion], reviewing and researching Defendants’
14
opposition and preparing [a] reply.”
15
Mr.
(Pl.’s Reply Br. p. 1.)
Preparing a fee motion is a relatively simple process,
16
particularly where, as here, Plaintiff had already once
17
prepared such a motion, and there were no unique or difficult
18
issues on the second go-round.
19
lack of any new issues having been raised, Mr. Farrer
20
nevertheless billed more time to the present fee motion (48.2)
21
than he did to his prior fee motion (43.6).
22
p. 1.)4
23
account for the excessiveness of Plaintiff’s second fees on
24
fees request, and reduce the request by fifty percent, from 48
25
hours to 24 hours.
I am troubled that despite the
(Pl.’s Reply Br.
I therefore find that a reduction is warranted to
See Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th at 1095.
26
4
27
28
I am also troubled by the fact that while Defendants’
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion was only 7 pages long,
Plaintiff’s reply was 19 pages long (8 pages longer than its
moving brief).
5
1
CONCLUSION
2
For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that
3
Plaintiff is awarded $80,750.00 in fees for 161.5 hours of
4
work at $500 per hour.
5
court further determines that this motion is suitable for
6
decision without oral argument and VACATES the hearing.5
7
Dated: March 2, 2012
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the
8
9
Bernard Zimmerman
United States Magistrate Judge
10
11
12
G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\CATAPHORA V. PARKER\POST TRIAL MOTIONS\ORDER ON PS SECOND
MOT FOR ATTORNEYS FEES.wpd
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
As part of Plaintiff’s fee request, Plaintiff
estimated an additional 3 hours to prepare for and attend the
hearing on this motion. Given that I have vacated the hearing,
these three hours were subtracted from Plaintiff’s fee request
and this reduction is reflected in the amount awarded above.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?