Kaselitz et al v. Hisoft Technology International, Ltd et al
Filing
69
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CLARIFY ORDER AND JUDGMENT; GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AWARD OF FEES AND COSTS; VACATING HEARING; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on March 24, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
ALANA KASELITZ, an individual; and
MELISSA KASELITZ, an individual,
No. C-12-5760 MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO CLARIFY ORDER AND
JUDGMENT; GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL AWARD
OF FEES AND COSTS; DIRECTIONS TO
CLERK
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
v.
HISOFT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
LTD., a Cayman Islands exempt company;
and TIAK KOON LOH, an individual,
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
By order filed February 19, 2016, the Court granted defendant hiSoft Technology
19
International, Ltd.’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, specifically, the Final Order
20
entered October 23, 2015, by arbitrator Mark C. Dosker.
21
Before the Court is defendant’s “Motion to Clarify Court’s Order and the Clerk of
22
Court’s Subsequent Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award in Favor of Defendant,” filed
23
March 2, 2016. Plaintiffs Alana Kaselitz and Melissa Kaselitz have not filed opposition.1
24
Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court deems the
25
matter suitable for determination thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 8,
26
2016, and rules as follows.
27
1
28
Any opposition was due no later than March 16, 2016. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a)
(providing opposition “must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the motion was
filed”).
In its motion, defendant seeks “clarification” of the Court’s order of February 19,
1
2
2016, and the Clerk of Court’s judgment entered thereon; in particular, defendant seeks to
3
have included in both documents the amount of fees, costs and disbursements awarded to
4
defendant by the arbitrator, specifically, $1,829,296.46, of which $57,236.63 is the joint and
5
several obligation of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ former counsel Ted C. Lindquist III. As the
6
Court has confirmed the arbitration award in its entirety, and there being no opposition to
7
the clarification sought, the Court will amend its order of February 19, 2016, to include
8
those figures.
In its motion, defendant also seeks an additional award of fees and costs,
9
10
specifically, the fees incurred and costs expended after September 28, 2015,2 the date on
11
which defendant submitted to the arbitrator an application for fees and costs. As defendant
12
is the prevailing party and the Amended Stock Purchase Agreement, the contract at issue,
13
provides that the prevailing party “shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees,
14
costs, and disbursements” (see Compl. Ex. C ¶ 11.8), the Court finds defendant is entitled
15
to recover the fees it reasonably incurred and costs reasonably expended during the
16
subject time period.
In that regard, defendant has submitted copies of invoices that set forth the fees
17
18
incurred and costs expended for the period of October 2015 through January 2016, which
19
invoices total $71,405.63. (See Williams Decl. Ex. B.)3 Additionally, defendant’s counsel
20
avers that the fees incurred and costs expended for the month of February 2016 total
21
$18,899.92. (See id. ¶ 4.) The Court finds the hourly rates used correspond to the
22
//
23
//
24
25
26
27
28
2
On September 28, 2015, defendant submitted to the arbitrator an application for an
award of fees and costs, which application sought an award for the time period through
September 2015.
3
Although defendant states the invoices total $96,875.22 (see id. ¶ 4), that figure
includes the amount set forth on an invoice dated February 25, 2016, which invoice was
superseded by a revised invoice dated February 29, 2016 (see id. Ex. B).
2
1
prevailing market rates in this District,4 that the number of hours expended was reasonable
2
in light of the issues presented in plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the arbitration award and in
3
defendant’s motion to confirm said award, and that the costs expended were reasonable.
4
Accordingly, defendant’s request for an additional award of fees and costs in the amount of
5
$90,305.55 will be granted, and said amount will be included in the judgment as well.
CONCLUSION
6
7
1. Defendant’s motion is hereby GRANTED as set forth above, and the Court has
8
filed, concurrently herewith, an Amended Order confirming the arbitrator’s award.
9
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter an amended judgment in favor of
10
defendant in the total amount of $1,919,602.01, of which $57,236.63 is the joint and
11
several obligation of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ former counsel Ted C. Lindquist III.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: March 24, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
27
28
The Court notes that the arbitrator, in considering defendant’s application for an
award of fees, likewise found the hourly rates were reasonable (see id. Ex. A at 58), and
plaintiffs, while opposing defendant’s application on “multiple grounds” (see id. Ex. A at 54),
did not challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rates sought therein.
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?