Halbrecht v. Jacobson et al

Filing 65

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers re 59 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court VACATES the hearing set for October 6, 2015. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

MARISSA HALBRECHT,

9

Plaintiff,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
JESSICA JACOBSON, et al.,

12

Case No.: 13-CV-3492 YGR
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 59

Defendants.

13

Plaintiff Marissa Halbrecht brings this motion to establish reasonable attorneys’ fees after

14
15

the Court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement (Dkt. No. 45) and entry of

16

final judgment in favor of plaintiff (Dkt. No. 57). The judgment against defendants states, in

17

pertinent part, that plaintiff “shall recover her costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred

18

in enforcing the settlement agreement.” (Dkt. No. 57.) The clerk of this Court previously taxed

19

costs against defendants in the amount of $400.00. (Dkt. No. 61.) Plaintiff now moves the Court

20

to establish attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,585.00 reasonable pursuant to the judgment. (Dkt.

21

No. 59.) No opposition has been filed to the motion.

22

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action,1 and for

23

the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby AWARDS plaintiff a total of $18,585.00 in reasonable

24

attorneys’ fees.

25
26
27
28

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearing set for
October 6, 2015.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

1
2

To determine reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Court first determines the lodestar figure by

3

considering both: (1) hourly rates; and (2) hours spent. Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d

4

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987); Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The

5

‘lodestar’ is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably

6

expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.”) The Court considers each in turn.

7

Based upon the evidence submitted by plaintiff, and the lack of any opposition or objection

8

by defendants, the Court finds that plaintiff’s counsel’s requested rate of $675 per hour for attorney

9

Baker and $570 per hour for attorney Schwartz is reasonable given the prevailing market rates for

10

attorneys of their respective levels of skill.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court also finds plaintiff’s requested hours reasonable. Having reviewed the detailed

12

records, the Court concludes that a total of 24.1 hours is well within reason for counsel’s work on

13

enforcing the settlement agreement. This includes time spent drafting four motions, a reply brief,

14

and the proposed judgment, as well as time spent communicating with the client and opposing

15

counsel. This leads to a base lodestar of $18,585.00.

16

The lodestar figure is a presumptively reasonable amount of attorney's fees. Perdue v.

17

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 543 (2010) (“that presumption may be overcome in those rare

18

circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may

19

properly be considered in determining a reasonable fee”). The Court finds that no circumstances

20

exist to warrant an adjustment to the lodestar in this case.

21

CONCLUSION

22
23

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby AWARDS plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees in
the amount of $18,585.00

24

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 59.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Date: September 28, 2015

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28

2