Brown v. Krantz et al

Filing 19

ORDER RE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 16, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DAVID HAJIME BROWN,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER RE ATTORNEY’S
FEES AND COSTS AND
ORDER VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

TIMOTHY KRANTZ, et al.,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 13-04949 WHA

In November 2013, plaintiff accepted defendant’s offer of judgment. In December

17

2013, this action was assigned to the undersigned judge. On January 15, 2014, plaintiff filed an

18

application for entry of judgment pursuant to FRCP 68 (Dkt. No. 17). The agreed upon offer

19

provides:

20

22

(1) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, if any, pursuant to the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1692k(c) and the California
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 1788.30(c) as
determined by the Court if not agreed upon by the parties, and (2)
$2,001.00 inclusive of all actual and statutory damages.

23

(Dkt. No. 11, Exh. A). Plaintiff now requests “a period of time not to exceed 30 days from the

24

entry of judgment to file and serve a Motion for Attorney[’s] Fees and Costs.”

21

25

FRCP 54(d)(2)(B)(i) and Local Rule 54-5(a) state that a motion for attorney’s fees shall

26

be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment unless a statute or court order provides

27

otherwise. Rule 54-5(a) states “Counsel for the respective parties must meet and confer for the

28

purpose of resolving all disputed issues relating to attorney’s fees before making a motion for

1

award of attorney’s fees.” For costs, appropriate documentation to support each item claimed

2

must be attached.

3
4

The following procedure will be used to determine the amount of an award herein. It
will be structured to allow meaningful evaluation of the time expended.

5

1.

No later than NOON ON FEBRUARY 6, plaintiff’s attorneys must file and serve a

6

detailed declaration, organized by discrete projects, breaking down all attorney and paralegal

7

time sought to be recovered. For each project, there must be a detailed description of the work,

8

giving the date, hours expended, attorney name, and task for each work entry, in chronological

9

order. A “project” means a deposition, a motion, a witness interview, and so forth. It does not
mean generalized statements like “trial preparation” or “attended trial.” It includes discrete

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

items like “prepare supplemental trial brief on issue X.” The following is an example of time

12

collected by a project.

13
14

PROJECT: ABC DEPOSITION (2 DAYS IN FRESNO)
Date

Timekeeper

Description

Hours x

Rate =

Fee

01-08-01

XYZ

Assemble and photocopy exhibits for
use in deposition.

2.0

$100

$200

01-09-01

RST

Review evidence and prepare to
examine ABC at deposition.

4.5

$200

$900

01-10-01

XYZ

Research issue of work-product
privilege asserted by deponent.

1.5

$100

$150

01-11-01

RST

Prepare for and take deposition.

8.5

$200

$1700

01-12-01

RST

Prepare for and take deposition.

7.0

$200

$1400

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

Project Total:
2.

23.5

$4350

All entries for a given project must be presented chronologically one after the

other, i.e., uninterrupted by other projects, so that the timeline for each project can be readily
grasped. Entries can be rounded to the nearest quarter-hour and should be net of write-down for
inefficiency or other cause. Please show the sub-totals for hours and fees per project, as in the
example above, and show grand totals for all projects combined at the end. Include only entries
for which compensation is sought, i.e., after application of “billing judgment.” For each
2

1

project, the declaration must further state, in percentage terms, the proportion of the project

2

directed at issues for which fees are awardable and must justify the percentage. This percentage

3

should then be applied against the project total to isolate the recoverable portion (a step not

4

shown in the example above).

5

3.

A separate summary chart of total time and fees sought per individual

6

timekeeper (not broken down by project) should also be shown at the end of the declaration.

7

This cross-tabulation will help illuminate all timekeepers’ respective workloads and roles in the

8

overall case.

9

4.

The declaration must also set forth (a) the qualifications, experience and role of

each attorney or paralegal for whom fees are sought; (b) the normal rate ordinarily charged for

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

each in the relevant time period; (c) how the rates were comparable to prevailing rates in the

12

community for like-skilled professionals; and (d) proof that “billing judgment” was exercised.

13

On the latter point, as before, the declaration should describe adjustments made to eliminate

14

duplication, excess, associate-turnover expense, and so forth. These adjustments need not be

15

itemized but totals for the amount deleted per timekeeper should be stated. The declaration

16

must identify the records used to compile the entries and, specifically, state whether and the

17

extent to which the records were contemporaneous versus retroactively prepared. It must state

18

the extent to which any entries include estimates (and what any estimates were based on).

19

Estimates and/or use of retroactively-made records may or may not be allowed, depending on

20

the facts and circumstances.

21

5.

Ordinarily, no more than one attorney and one paralegal need be present at a

22

deposition; more will normally be deemed excessive. Ordinarily, no more than one attorney

23

need attend a law-and-motion hearing; more will normally be deemed excessive. To allow for

24

symmetry, however, the award will take into account the staffing used by the opposing party.

25

6.

If the opposing party doubts the accuracy of the declaration, then the moving

26

party must immediately produce the original underlying time records for inspection upon

27

request. The opposing party must then file and serve any opposition. In this case, the

28

opposition will be due FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS after plaintiff’s detailed declaration is filed.
3

1

If the opposing party contends that any item or project was excessive, then the opposition must

2

explain why and provide a declaration setting forth completely all time expended by the

3

opposing party on the same and on similar projects, in the same format described above, so that

4

symmetry may be considered, making available the underlying records for inspection if

5

requested. If any billing rates are challenged, then the opposition must state the billing rates

6

charged to the opposing party for all professionals representing the opposing party in the case

7

and their experience levels. The opposing declaration must also state, as to each project, the

8

percentage of the project the opposition contends was directed at issues on which fees are

9

awardable, stating reasons for the percentage. This percentage should then be applied against

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the project total to isolate the recoverable portion.
7.

The opposing submissions may not simply attack the numbers in the application.

12

It must also set forth a counter-analysis. The counter-analysis should be in the same format

13

required of the applicant, arriving at a final number. The opposition must clearly identify each

14

line item in the application challenged as excessive, improper or otherwise unrecoverable and

15

explain why. The opposition, for example, may annotate (legible handwriting will be

16

acceptable) the applicant’s declaration to isolate the precise numbers at issue.

17

8.

With the benefit of both sides’ filings, representatives of the parties with final

18

decision authority shall meet in person and confer to try to resolve all differences as to the

19

amount. If no agreement is reached, the moving party must file and serve a declaration showing

20

full compliance with this paragraph, explaining when, where and who met, their decision

21

authority, how long they met, what documents were reviewed together, and the principal points

22

of disagreement. This must be done within 28 CALENDAR DAYS of the filing of movant’s

23

detailed declaration.

24

9.

If no agreement is reached, a special master shall be appointed. If the parties

25

cannot agree on a special master, then the Court shall select a special master. The parties must

26

so advise the Court on this within 28 CALENDAR DAYS of the filing of movant’s detailed

27

declaration.

28
4

1

10.

The special master shall have all the powers set forth in FRCP 53(c) and

2

FRCP 54(d)(2)(D). The parties shall provide the special master with copies of all motion

3

papers and other documents relevant to this dispute. The special master shall review the briefs

4

and declarations by the parties on the pending motion, hear argument, and then determine a

5

reasonable amount to award, including any fees on fees. The special master shall also

6

determine the extent to which any discovery should be permitted — with the caution that further

7

discovery should be the exception and not the rule. The special master shall then prepare and

8

file a report on recommended findings and amount.

9

11.

Absent any supplementation allowed by the special master, the foregoing

submissions (together with the briefs already filed) shall be the entire record for the motion.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

There will be no replies unless allowed later by the special master. Any further submissions for

12

the special master’s use should not be filed with the Court. If objections are later made to the

13

special master’s report, the objecting party must file a declaration submitting to the Court a

14

complete appendix of relevant communications with the special master.

15

12.

The Court will allocate the fees of the special master in a fair and reasonable

16

manner, taking into account the reasonableness of the parties’ respective positions and the

17

special master’s recommendation in this regard. If the movant must pay, then the special

18

master’s compensation shall be deducted from the attorney’s fee award. If the opposing party

19

must pay the special master, then it shall pay the special master and pay the award. The Court

20

will, however, reserve final judgment on allocation of the expense of the special master until a

21

final determination of the fee issue. A final award shall then be entered.

22

13.

Costs will be determined in strict compliance with the local rules. If a review is

23

sought regarding taxable costs, then the issue may also be referred to a special master (or may

24

not).

25
26
27
28
5

1

14.

2

The first case management conference scheduled for January 21 is hereby

VACATED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: January 16, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6