Trustees on Behalf of Teamsters Benefit Trust v. Coastside Scavenger Company et al

Filing 28

ORDER RE NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS. Signed by Judge Beeler on 3/26/2012. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
TRUSTEES ON BEHALF OF TEAMSTERS
BENEFIT TRUST,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
13

No. C 11-05316 LB
ORDER RE NEED FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS

v.

14

COASTSIDE SCAVENGER COMPANY,

15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16
17

In the above-captioned matter, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment that has been noticed

18

for hearing on April 5, 2012. ECF Nos. 19 and 25. The court identifies the following small

19

deficiencies and directs Plaintiff to correct them.

20

Plaintiff seeks damages of $50,000 in unpaid liquidated damages. ECF No. 19 at 2; Complaint,

21

ECF No. 1 at 4. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a plaintiff may apply to the district

22

court for – and the court may grant – a default judgment against a defendant who has failed to plead

23

or otherwise defend an action. See Draper v. Combs, 792 F.2d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 1986). But the

24

plaintiff must prove all damages sought in the complaint. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld

25

Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D. Cal. 2003). And “even a defaulting party is entitled to have

26

its opponent produce some evidence to support an award of damages.” LG Elecs., Inc. v. Advance

27

Creative Computer, 212 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1178 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Here, Plaintiff makes allegations

28

in its motion and complaint but provides no evidence.

C 11-05316 LB
ORDER

1

Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees. ECF No. 19 at 2. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in

2

support of the application for the award of attorneys’s fees. ECF No. 21. The undersigned directs

3

Plaintiff’s counsel to supplement his declaration to address the two deficiencies identified below.

4

First, as to the requested rate, the fee applicant has the burden of producing satisfactory evidence

attorneys of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S.

7

886, 895 n.11 (1984); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Affidavits of the plaintiff’s

8

attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations in

9

other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney, are satisfactory evidence of

10

the prevailing market rate. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407

11

(9th Cir. 1990). While the undersigned does not intend for Plaintiff to incur significant expense in

12
For the Northern District of California

that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

addressing this deficiency, an attorney’s declaration regarding the reasonableness of his or her own

13

rate, standing alone, is insufficient to meet the fee applicant’s burden. Wren v. RGIS Inventory

14

Specialists, No. C–06–05778 JCS, 2011 WL 1230826, (N. D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011) (citing Jordan v.

15

Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987)); APL Co. Pte. Ltd. v. UK Aerosols Ltd.,

16

No. C 05-00646 MHP, 2010 WL 347667, at *4 (N. D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2010) (same).

17

Second, as to the requested hours, a fee applicant must show that he or she exercised billing

18

judgment in the preparation of the attorney’s fee application and that the requested hours were

19

reasonably expended (i.e., not duplicative, unproductive, excessive or otherwise unnecessary).

20

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Detailed billing records – e.g., hourly invoices – are generally required to

21

assist the court in its determination of reasonable fees. See, e.g., Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v.

22

Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1232 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he district court abused its

23

discretion by not requiring . . . original time records and billing statements.”); Hensley, 461 U.S. at

24

433 (“Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award

25

accordingly.”). Here, Plaintiff submitted hourly invoices but it is unclear which lawyers performed

26

the tasks described in the affidavit.

27
28

The court ORDERS Plaintiff to file the supplemental declarations to correct the deficiencies by
5:30 p.m. on March 29, 2012, and – if not unduly burdensome – to email the billing records in

C 11-05316 LB
ORDER

2

1

Wordperfect, Microsoft Word, or Microsoft Excel format to [e-mail]. If Plaintiff

2

cannot produce the declarations by this time, Plaintiff shall notify the court and the court will

3

reschedule the hearing.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 11-05316 LB
ORDER

3