Johnson, et al v. Myers et al

Filing 102

FURTHER ORDER RE ATTORNEYS FEES. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/6/2014. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JAMES R. JOHNSON, et al.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN L. MYERS, et al.

FURTHER ORDER RE
ATTORNEY’S FEES

Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 11-00092 WHA

On May 29, 2012, an order denied defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees (Dkt. No. 80).

17

On March 7, 2014, our court of appeals reversed the order, ruling that defendants were the

18

prevailing party in this action under California Civil Code Section 1717 for purposes of their

19

entitlement to attorney’s fees (Dkt. No. 91).

20

On March 10, both sides were requested to file briefing on how to proceed in light of the

21

reversal. While defendants requested leave to submit an application for attorney’s fees, plaintiffs

22

failed to contest defendants’ entitlement to attorney’s fees or otherwise respond. Accordingly,

23

the Court filed an order that established procedures for determining the attorney’s fees award. In

24

response, defendants filed a detailed declaration in support of their request for $119,679.51 in

25

attorney’s fees and non-taxable expenses. In reply, plaintiffs claim that defendants are not

26

entitled to any attorney’s fees, or alternatively, that defendants should only receive a fixed

27

amount. In addition, plaintiffs assert that only plaintiff James Johnson should be liable for any

28

attorney’s fees award won by defendants.

1

Specifically, plaintiffs argue that defendants are not entitled to attorney’s fees under

2

Section 1717 because they have not established the reciprocity requirement under the statute.

3

They alternatively claim that defendants are only entitled to a percentage of their attorney’s fees

4

request because only one of the nine claims in the action was contract-based. Finally, they argue

5

that defendants are only entitled to a percentage of their attorney’s fees request because they won

6

a procedural, rather than substantive, victory. Plaintiffs could have made these arguments

7

regarding entitlement to our court of appeals. This order interprets the decision from our court

8

of appeals to hold that defendants are entitled to all reasonable fees incurred.

9

The March 31 attorney’s fees and costs order continues to apply. The next step is for
both parties to meet-and-confer in person to try and resolve the differences as to the amount of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

fees (Dkt. No. 95 ¶ 10).

12

Defendants shall also file a brief, no longer than five pages, by NOON ON MAY 16, 2014,

13

in response to plaintiffs’ request that only plaintiff James Johnson should be liable for the

14

attorney’s fees award due to the fact that he was the “driver” of the litigation and the other

15

plaintiffs were merely “passive investors.”

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: May 6, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2