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 lbpo@cand.uscourts.gov. 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
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?