700 Valencia Street LLC v. Farina Focaccia & Cucina Italiana, LLC et al
Filing
143
ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero GRANTING 122 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS, VACATING MOTION HEARING AND MOVING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FROM 9:30 A.M. TO 2:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 16, 2018. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
700 VALENCIA STREET LLC,
7
Plaintiff,
Case No. 15-cv-04931-JCS
Related Case No. 15-cv-2286 JCS
8
v.
9
FARINA FOCACCIA & CUCINA
ITALIANA, LLC,
10
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS,
VACATING MOTION HEARING AND
MOVING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE FROM 9:30 A.M. TO
2:00 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 16, 2018
Re: Dkt. No. 122
I.
INTRODUCTION
Following a bench trial, the undersigned found in favor of 700 Valencia Street LLC (“700
14
15
Valencia”) in this unlawful detainer action. 700 Valencia brought a Motion for Entry of
16
Judgment, Damages, Writ of Possession, Attorneys‟ Fees and Costs, and Other Relief (Dkt. No.
17
104) (“First Fee Motion”). The Court granted that motion in part, finding that 700 Valencia was
18
entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys‟ fees and costs but deferring consideration of the
19
amount until after it had ruled on Farina‟s post-trial motions. See Dkt. No. 110. The post-trial
20
motions were resolved and 700 Valencia now brings a renewed motion for an award of attorneys‟
21
fees and costs (“Motion” or “Renewed Fee Motion”). The Court finds that the Motion is suitable
22
for determination without oral argument and therefore vacates the motion hearing set for
23
February 16, 2018 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The Court also vacates the Case
24
Management Conference set for the same day in Case No. 15-cv-4931. The Case Management
25
Conference in Related Case No. 15-cv-2286, which is scheduled for the same date, is moved
26
from 9:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.1
27
1
28
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
1
II.
BACKGROUND
2
In the First Fee Motion, 700 Valencia requested $675,611.73 in attorneys‟ fees for 1,010.9
3
hours of work performed by six attorneys and three legal assistants. It also requested costs in the
4
amount of $24,872.69. First Fee Motion at 10. In the Renewed Fee Motion, 700 Valencia sought
5
attorneys‟ fees in the amount of $697,864.93 for 1071.9 hours of work performed by six attorneys
6
and three legal assistants through September 29, 2017, as well as an additional $10,000 in
7
estimated fees for work on the instant motion. In addition, it requested $21,635.79 in costs. This
8
reduced amount reflects an adjustment in the costs requested for service of process made by 700
9
Valencia in response to Farina‟s opposition to its First Fee Motion.
Finally, on February 2, 2018, in response to the Court‟s request, 700 Valencia submitted
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
timesheets and a declaration reflecting that it has incurred $17,280.45 in fees since October 1,
12
2017, which includes: (a) $9,620.55 to prepare the Renewed Fee Motion and reply brief in support
13
thereof and the contemporaneously-filed Application for Writs of Execution and Possession (as
14
well as miscellaneous case management stipulations); and (b) $7,659.90 to execute the Writ of
15
Possession in coordination with the U.S. Marshals Service (including researching the U.S.
16
Marshal‟s eviction and levy procedures). Thus, the updated amount 700 Valencia seeks in
17
attorneys‟ fees is $715,145.38 (that is, $697,864.93 plus $17,280.45). The amount of costs
18
requested remains $21,635.79.2
19
Farina objects that both the rates requested and the time expended by 700 Valencia‟s
20
counsel is excessive. It also argues that certain costs are not allowable, as discussed further
21
below.3
22
23
2
24
25
26
27
28
Farina has not filed any objections to 700 Valencia‟s supplemental materials, and the deadline
for objection has now passed. See Docket No. 142.
3
Farina also argued in its opposition to both the First Fee Motion and the Renewed Fee Motion
that any award of fees and costs should be adjusted downward to take into account the
improvements made by Farina to 700 Valencia‟s property. The Court rejected Farina‟s argument
already in its August 11, 2017 Order and therefore does not revisit that question here. See Docket
No. 110 at 5 (“The Court also rejects Farina‟s argument that the Court should exercise its
equitable power to deny 700 Valencia an award of damages (or attorneys‟ fees) because 700
Valencia will be unjustly enriched if it is allowed both to take possession of a much-improved
property and also to receive an award of damages and attorneys‟ fees in this action.”).
2
1
III.
ANALYSIS
2
A.
3
Both federal and California courts have adopted the “lodestar” method for determining
4
reasonable attorneys‟ fees. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); see PLCM Grp. v.
5
Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the
6
lodestar). The lodestar figure is the product of the hours counsel reasonably spent on the case and a
7
reasonable hourly rate. Id.; Jordan v. Multnomah Cnty., 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987). While
8
the court is permitted to adjust the lodestar figure pursuant to a variety of factors, there is a strong
9
presumption that the lodestar is reasonable. Johnson v. Lin, No. 2:13–cv–01484–GEB–DAD,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Legal Standard
2016 WL 1267830, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2016).
“[A]ssessing how much time an attorney can reasonably spend on a specific case . . .
12
always depend[s] on case-specific factors including, among others, the complexity of the legal
13
issues, the procedural history, the size of the record, and when counsel was retained.” Costa v.
14
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2012). Further, to determine whether a
15
party‟s claimed hours are reasonable, the court must review attorneys‟ time records to determine
16
whether the hours are adequately documented in a manner that can be properly billed directly to
17
clients. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434; see also Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th
18
Cir. 1986) (holding that the fee applicant bears the burden of submitting detailed time records
19
justifying the hours claimed to have been expended). A fee applicant should “exercise „billing
20
judgment‟ with respect to hours worked.” Id. at 437. The court also must assess whether the hours
21
claimed are vague, block-billed, excessive or duplicative. See Navarro v. General Nutrition
22
Corp., No. C 03–0603 SBA, 2005 WL 2333803, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2005).
23
The fee applicant also has the burden of producing satisfactory evidence that the requested
24
rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of lawyers of
25
reasonably comparable skill and reputation. Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1263. As a general rule, the
26
forum district represents the relevant legal community. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392,
27
1405 (9th Cir. 1992). Fee applicants may provide affidavits of practitioners from the same forum
28
with similar experience to establish the reasonableness of the hourly rate sought. See, e.g.,
3
1
Mendenhall v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 213 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir. 2000); Jones v. Metro. Life
2
Ins. Co., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1024–25 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Decisions by other courts regarding the
3
reasonableness of the rate sought may also provide evidence to support a finding of reasonableness.
4
See Widrig v. Apfel, 140 F.3d 1207, 1210 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that a rate set by the district court
5
based, in part, on the rate awarded to same attorney in another case, was reasonable).
6
7
B.
Lodestar Amount
1. Reasonable Rates
700 Valencia seeks the following hourly rates for the attorneys and legal assistants who
9
worked on the instant action: 1) Jonathan Hughes (Partner) - $795 (2016), $751.50 (2017); 2)
10
Kenneth Neale (Partner) - $775; 3) Benjamin Wolinsky (Associate) - $675; 4) Zachary Fayne
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
(Associate) - $670.50; 5) Neda Khoshkhoo (Associate) - $420; 6) Jerome Ferrer (Legal
12
Assistant) - $355; 7) Kinson Yee (Legal Assistant) - $335; 8) Marc Schiess (Legal Assistant) -
13
$355. See Second Hughes Decl. [Dkt. No. 122-2] ¶ 16. For the reasons stated below, the Court
14
concludes all of these rates are reasonable except for that requested for Marc Scheiss, which the
15
Court reduces.
16
17
a. Hughes
Hughes was lead counsel on this case. Id. ¶ 4. He was admitted to practice in California
18
in 1996 and completed a one-year clerkship. Id. In 1997, after his clerkship, he joined the
19
Howard Rice firm as a litigator and he has worked continuously as a litigator since that time. Id.
20
When Howard Rice combined with Arnold & Porter to become Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
21
(“APKS”), Hughes remained with the firm, eventually becoming a shareholder and partner. He
22
has extensive trial experience and has been recognized by the Daily Journal as one of California‟s
23
“Top 100 Attorneys” (2014), by California Lawyer as one of the “Attorneys of the Year” (2015)
24
and as a Northern California Super Lawyer (2007, 2014-2016). Id. Hughes‟s standard billing rate
25
is $795/hour and 700 Valencia was billed at that rate in 2016. Id. ¶ 16. In 2017, 700 Valencia was
26
given a 10% discount on Hughes‟s rate and thus the rate charged in that year for Hughes‟s work
27
was $751.50/hour. In support of these rates, 700 Valencia offers Hughes‟s own declaration and
28
the declaration of Gary Greenfield, whose business, Litigation Cost Management (“LCM”),
4
1
consults regarding legal-fee related issues. First Greenfield Decl. [Dkt. No. 104-9] ¶ 3; Second
2
Greenfield Decl. [Dkt. No. 122-8] ¶ 3. According to Greenfield, Hughes‟s rate is “within the
3
market for commercial real estate litigators in San Francisco.” Id. ¶ 36. The Court finds that the
4
rates requested for Hughes are reasonable.4
5
b. Neale
Kenneth Neale is a partner at APKS who specializes in transactional real estate law and
6
who offered assistance with respect to a specific issue, the depreciation of restaurant equipment, in
8
preparation for a settlement conference in this action. Second Hughes Decl. ¶ 6. His hourly rate is
9
$775. Id. ¶ 16. He is a 1986 law school graduate. Greenfield Decl. ¶ 42. Greenfield opines that
10
Neale‟s rate, which is lower than Hughes‟s, is reasonable and an appropriate rate for the work he
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
did. The Court finds that the rate requested for Neale is reasonable.
12
c. Wolinsky
Benjamin Wolinsky graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 2010. Second
13
14
Hughes Decl. ¶ 9. He was a sixth-year associate at APKS in 2016. Id.
15
“Rising Star” in general litigation by the Northern California Super Lawyers. Id. In February
16
2017, Mr. Wolinsky left APKS to become an Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern
17
District of California. Id. His hourly rate was $675. Id. ¶ 16. According to Greenfield, based on
18
the rates in LCM‟s rate database, this rate is at the 79th percentile for Northern District lawyers
19
who graduated between 2007 and 2013, whose rates range from $225 to $875 per hour. Second
20
Greenfield Decl. ¶ 39. Greenfield opines that Wolinsky‟s rate is reasonable and an appropriate
21
rate for the work he performed in the litigation. Id. The Court finds that the rate requested for
22
Wolinsky is reasonable.
23
In 2017, he was named a
d. Fayne
Zachary Fayne is a seventh-year associate who graduated cum laude from Harvard
24
25
4
26
27
28
The Court‟s conclusion finds further support in the Declaration of Earl Bohachek, Dkt. No. 47,
in which Bohachek states that attorneys in San Francisco with experience comparable to his
generally charge between $750 and $850 an hour. While Hughes has not practiced as many years
as Bohachek, Hughes‟s extensive trial experience and the recognition he has received establish
that his experience is at least comparable to Bohachek‟s for the purposes of determining a
reasonable rate.
5
1
Law School in 2009. Second Hughes Decl. ¶ 10. His hourly rate is $670.50. Id. ¶ 16. According
2
to Greenfield, based on the rates in LCM‟s rate database, this rate is at the 73rd percentile for
3
Northern District lawyers who graduated between 2005 and 2013, whose rates range from $225 to
4
$940 per hour. Second Greenfield Decl. ¶ 41. Greenfield opines that Fayne‟s rate is reasonable
5
and an appropriate rate for the work he performed in the litigation. Id. The Court finds that the
6
rate requested for Fayne is reasonable.
7
8
e. Khoshkoo
Neda Khoshkhoo graduated from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in
2015. Second Hughes Decl. ¶ 8. She was a first-year associate at APKS in 2016. Id. In August
10
2016, she left APKS to clerk for a district court judge. Id. Her hourly rate was $420. Id. ¶ 16.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
According to Greenfield, based on the rates in LCM‟s rate database, this rate is at the 58th
12
percentile for Northern District lawyers who graduated in 2015, whose rates range from $285 to
13
$470 per hour. Second Greenfield Decl. ¶ 40. Greenfield opines that Koshkoo‟s rate is reasonable
14
and an appropriate rate for the work she performed in the litigation. Id. The Court finds that the
15
rate requested for Koshkoo is reasonable.
16
17
f. Ferrer, Yee and Scheiss
Mr. Ferrer and Mr. Yee each have over 20 years of legal assistant experience, and Mr.
18
Schiess has over ten years of experience. Second Hughes Decl. ¶ 11. Mr. Ferrer (the legal
19
assistant who billed the most time on this matter) has served as the lead legal assistant in over 20
20
complex litigation trials. Id. The rates requested for these individuals are $355 an hour (Ferrer
21
and Schiess) and $335 an hour (Yee). Greenfield opines that these rates are reasonable and within
22
the market for paralegals in the Northern District. Second Greenfield Decl. ¶ 43. Based on the
23
experience of the undersigned, these rates are on the high side. As to Ferrer, the Court nonetheless
24
finds the $355 rate sought to be reasonable based on his many years of experience and the fact that
25
he has been lead legal assistant in numerous complex litigation trials. See Perfect 10, Inc. v.
26
Giganews, Inc., No. CV 11-07098-AB SHX, 2015 WL 1746484, at *21 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015),
27
aff'd, 847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2017)(finding in 2015 that rate of $345 an hour for a paralegal
28
practicing in the Central District of California was on the “higher end” but concluding that rate
6
1
was reasonable in light of paralegal‟s 23 years of experience). Likewise, the $335 rate sought for
2
Yee is reasonable based on his many years of experience. 700 Valencia has not demonstrated that
3
Schiess‟s rate is reasonable, however. In particular, it seeks a rate of $355 for Schiess, who has
4
only ten years of experience (that is, approximately half the experience of Ferrer and Yee in terms
5
of years), and offers no explanation for the fact that Schiess‟s requested rate is the same as Ferrar‟s
6
and higher than Yee‟s. Therefore, the Court reduces Schiess‟s rate to $335 an hour.
7
8
2. Reasonable Time
700 Valencia has provided both detailed time sheets listing each item for which it billed
and an exhibit breaking down the time spent into broad categories of work performed in this
10
action. See Second Hughes Decl., Exs. A (attorney timesheets), B (paralegal timesheets) & C
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
(Chart); see also Third Hughes Decl. (Docket No. 141) ¶ 4 & Ex. A (updated timesheets). The
12
categories of work are: 1) Case Management (34.6 hours); 2) Written Discovery (141 hours); 3)
13
Depositions (105.9 hours); 4) Summary Judgment (209.7 hours); 5) Settlement (36.8 hours); 6)
14
Trial (412.4); 7) Miscellaneous, including legal research, communications with clients and internal
15
meetings (26.6); 8) Original Motion for Entry of Judgment, Damages, Writ of Possession,
16
Attorneys‟ Fees and Costs, and Other Relief (First Fee Motion) (91.1 hours); 9) Post-Judgment
17
Motions (13.8). Id., Ex. C. The supplemental materials supplied by 700 Valencia show that
18
between October 1, 2017 and February 2, 2018, 700 Valencia also billed for 25.70 hours or work
19
by attorneys Hughes and Fayne in connection with the Renewed Fee Motion and the Application
20
for Writs of Execution and Possession (both the preparation of the writs and their execution). The
21
Court has reviewed both the timesheets and the breakdown of work completed and finds that the
22
time 700 Valencia seeks is reasonable. The Court‟s conclusion is based on a number of
23
considerations.
24
First, the Second Hughes Declaration and attorney time sheets attached thereto reflect that
25
700 Valencia‟s counsel exercised billing judgment and wrote off time that counsel did not believe
26
should be billed to the client. Second Hughes Decl. ¶ 17. Further, the fee request includes fees
27
only for work that was actually billed to 700 Valencia. Id. ¶ 13.
28
Second, the Court finds that the time spent on the various tasks listed in Exhibit C, as well
7
1
as the time reflected in 700 Valencia‟s supplemental materials, was reasonable. Farina contends
2
the time spent by counsel on these tasks was excessive, pointing out that its own attorney, who
3
handled this case alone, billed fewer hours for some of the same categories of work. First
4
Opposition [Dkt. No. 106] at 5. “Although opposing counsel‟s billing records may be relevant to
5
determining whether the prevailing party spent a reasonable number of hours on the case, those
6
records are not dispositive . . . and the district court has the discretion not to rely on them.”
7
Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, the time spent by Mr.
8
Bohachek on various tasks does not provide a particularly useful guidepost for determining
9
whether the time spent by 700 Valencia was reasonable. While Farina chose to retain a solo
practitioner, 700 Valencia was not required to follow suit. Moreover, Farina “lost this case, so
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
[Farina‟s] approach does not recommend a model for conducting litigation.” Chabner v. United of
12
Omaha Life Ins. Co., No. C-95-0447 MHP, 1999 WL 33227443, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 1999).
13
Third, 700 Valencia reduced certain time entries by between 20% and 50% to exclude time
14
for work on some topics that were not directly related to the unlawful detainer action on which it
15
prevailed. See Second Hughes Dec. ¶¶ 14-15. In particular, 700 Valencia attempted to segregate
16
fees for: (a) the construction defect and return of security deposit claims asserted by Farina in Case
17
No. 15-cv-02286; (b) 700 Valencia‟s unlawful detainer claims against defendant Luca Minna and
18
the related motion to dismiss and motion for attorneys‟ fees; (c) miscellaneous issues that arose
19
during the litigation, such as issues concerning Units 8 and 9 of the commercial property located at
20
702-706 Valencia Street, San Francisco, California. Id. ¶ 14. Farina argues that any attempt to
21
segregate these issues would be “arbitrary” and therefore, the Court should not award any
22
attorneys‟ fees. First Opposition at 6. The Court disagrees. While it may be impossible to parse
23
out with mathematical precision the exact amount of fees incurred in connection with the issues
24
discussed above, the Court has reviewed the specific time entries and reductions made by 700
25
Valencia‟s counsel and finds them to be on the conservative side and more than reasonable. As a
26
practical matter, only a tiny fraction of the litigation related to the issues listed above and
27
therefore, the reductions proposed by 700 Valencia adequately take into account work that was
28
unrelated to the unlawful detainer claim.
8
Fourth, 700 Valencia has reduced its fees in cases where multiple attorneys attended
1
2
depositions or trial, charging only for the time of one attorney. Second Hughes Decl. ¶ 14.
Finally, 700 Valencia does not seek to recover any of the fees incurred in this action by the
3
4
Benjamin Law Group, which represented 700 Valencia in the early stages of this case.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the time billed by 700 Valencia is reasonable.
5
6
3. Conclusion
Based on the rates and hours discussed above, the lodestar amount is $715,041.38.5 The
7
8
Court further finds that there are not factors that warrant a reduction or enhancement of this
9
amount. Therefore, the Court awards $715,041.38 in attorneys‟ fees.
C.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
700 Valencia lists its costs on a standard Bill of Costs form, seeking the following costs: 1)
Costs
12
$3,147.90 (service of process under Civ. L. R. 54-3(a)(2)); 2) $1,097.85 (other transcripts, by
13
order or stipulation, under Civ. L. R. 54-3(b)(3)); 3) $8,159.71 (deposition transcripts/ videos
14
under Civ. L. R. 54-3(c)(1)); 4) $277.60 (government records under Civ. L. R. 54-3(d)(1)); 5)
15
$299.27 (disclosure/ formal discovery documents under Civ. L. R. 54-3(d)(2)); 6) $8,654.46
16
(visual aids under Civ. L. R. 54-3(d)(5)). Second Hughes Decl., Ex. D. In addition, 700 Valencia
17
requests $3,055.77 for computerized research costs as a component of its attorneys‟ fees award.
18
Farina does not dispute that 700 Valencia is entitled to the amounts requested for other transcripts
19
(item 2), deposition transcripts /videos (item 3), government records (item 4), and
20
disclosure/formal discovery documents (item 5) under Rule 54-3. Because 700 Valencia has
21
supplied invoices documenting these amounts, see Second Hughes Decl., Ex. E, they are awarded
22
in full. Below, the Court addresses the disputed costs.
23
1. Service of Process
700 Valencia seeks $3,147.90 for “service of process.” This amount is based on six items,
24
25
four of which Farina concedes should be awarded. See Second Hughes Decl., Ex. E (invoices);
26
First Opposition [Docket No. 106] at 8 (listing costs that Farina concedes should be awarded for
27
5
28
This amount is $104 less than the lodestar requested by 700 Valencia, reflecting the downward
adjustment of the rate for legal assistant Marc Scheiss from $355/hour to $335/hour.
9
1
service of process). The two disputed items are: 1) a charge of $215.50 for attempted service of a
2
deposition subpoena on Erika McDowell; and 2) $2,156.77 for a private investigator to locate Ms.
3
McDowell after service attempts were unsuccessful. It is well-established that under 28 U.S.C. §
4
1920, which allows “[f]ees of the clerk and marshal” to be taxed, a court may award the cost of
5
private service of a subpoena. See Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 178
6
(9th Cir. 1990). As 700 Valencia has provided an invoice documenting that expense, and because
7
this attempt at service was reasonable, the Court awards the charge of $215.50 for attempted
8
service on Ms. McDowell.
The Court also finds that 700 Valencia is entitled to the cost of retaining a private
10
investigator to locate Ms. McDowell. A prevailing party may recover as part of a fee award out-
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
of-pocket expenses counsel normally charges fee-paying clients so long as the expenses are
12
substantiated and reasonable in amount. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 2005).
13
Fees of private investigators are “routinely charged to fee-paying clients.” Davis v. Sundance
14
Apartments, No. CIV S071922FCDGGH, 2008 WL 3166479, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2008).
15
Further, in light of Farina‟s refusal to cooperate with 700 Valencia in connection with Ms.
16
McDowell‟s deposition, the cost of retaining a private investigator to locate her is entirely
17
reasonable. Therefore, the Court awards this amount in full.
18
19
2. Visual Aids
700 Valencia seeks $8,654.46 for visual aids. Farina does not dispute that such costs may
20
be awarded but contends the amount here is unreasonable. The Court disagrees. The invoices
21
provided by 700 Valencia reflect that the costs associated with “visual aids” were related to the
22
preparation of video clips that were used extensively at trial – in some cases eliminating the need
23
for witnesses to travel to San Francisco to appear in person. The Court has reviewed these
24
detailed invoices and finds the costs to be reasonable. The Court further notes that Farina has
25
pointed to no specific evidence that suggests they are unreasonable. Therefore, the Court awards
26
the amount sought for visual aids in full.
27
28
3. Electronic Research
700 Valencia requests $3,055.77 for PACER and Westlaw computerized research costs.
10
1
The Ninth Circuit has held that expenses for computerized legal research are compensable as
2
“reasonable attorney‟s fees” so long as “separate billing for such expenses is „the prevailing
3
practice in the local community.‟” Trustees of Const. Indus. & Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. v.
4
Redland Ins. Co., 460 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274,
5
287 n. 9 (1989)). APKS typically charges its clients for the costs of computerized research and
6
charged 700 Valencia for the costs here. Second Hughes Decl. ¶ 21. Further, courts in this
7
district commonly award the costs of electronic research as part of fee awards and have found that
8
it is the prevailing practice in the San Francisco Bay area to bill clients for such expenses. See,
9
e.g., Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., No. 11-CV-05452-EDL, 2016 WL 7743405, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
14, 2016) ) (finding that passing on legal research costs is “the prevailing practice” in the local
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
community); Bd. of Trustees v. Piedmont Lumber & Mill Co., No. 13-CV-03898-HSG, 2016 WL
12
4446993, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2016) (awarding costs of PACER and legal research as a
13
component of fee award); Langston v. N. Am. Asset Dev. Corp. Grp. Disability Plan, No. C 08-
14
02560 SI, 2010 WL 330085, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2010) (finding that it is the prevailing
15
practice in the Northern District of California to bill clients separately for Westlaw research), on
16
reconsideration, No. C 08-02560 SI, 2010 WL 1460201 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2010) (adjusting
17
hourly rate for counsel but leaving in place cost award for Westlaw research); Mahach–Watkins v.
18
Depee, C 05–1143 SI, 2009 WL 3401281 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 20, 2009) (“The Court has adjudicated
19
many fee and cost petitions, and finds that attorneys routinely bill their clients” for legal research
20
costs). The Court also finds that the costs requested in this case for PACER and Westlaw research
21
are reasonable and were actually incurred. Therefore, the Court awards these costs in full.
22
IV.
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court awards $715,041.38 in attorneys‟ fees, $21,635.79
for costs listed on 700 Valencia‟s Bill of Costs and $3,055.77 for electronic research.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 8, 2018
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
11
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?