Pham et al

Filing 113

ORDER re 82 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Katherine Buckmeyer, 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Mai Christina Pham, Joyce Freeman, Hung Perry Nguyen, Christopher Hake, Mai Nguyen, John Pham, 80 AMENDED MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Mai Christina Pham, Joyce Freeman, Hung Perry Nguyen, Christopher Hake, Mai Nguyen, John Pham. Signed by Judge James Ware on May 22, 2009. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 In re ComUnity Lending, Inc. ___________________________________ Mai Christina Pham, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. ComUnity Lending, Inc., et al., Defendants / On April 24, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motions for Attorney Fees, in light of their prevailing party status in this ERISA action. (Docket Item No. 105.) Jesse Hill, the attorney representing the Buckmeyer group of Plaintiffs, requested $160,000.00. (Docket Item No. 82.) The law firm of Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP, which represents the Pham group of Plaintiffs, requested $358,934.75. (Docket Item Nos. 80-81.) The Court, however, found that Plaintiffs' requested fees were insufficiently documented, and directed Plaintiffs to file supplemental declarations detailing the nature and extent of the fees requested. Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs' Declarations in support of their motions for attorney fees. Jesse Hill filed a Declaration. (Docket Item Nos. 106-07), as did the Liner law firm (Docket Item Nos. 108, 112.). To determine reasonable attorney fees, a court must at a minimum, calculate a lodestar by multiplying the number of hours it finds the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-00201 JW ORDER SETTING ATTORNEY FEES

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

by a reasonable hourly rate. MacDougal v. Catalyst Nightclub, 58 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1104 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). The Ninth Circuit has adopted a twelve factor test,1 which a court may consider as a possible basis for adjusting the lodestar. MacDougal, 58 F. Supp. 2d at 1104 (citing Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)). The court need not discuss each of the Kerr factors, but only those relevant to the particular case. Id. at 1105. In this case, the Court finds that the fees requested by the Liner law firm on behalf of the Pham Plaintiffs to be reasonable. This action involved complex issues of ERISA and bankruptcy law. The Court is satisfied by the Liner firm's Declaration, in which it provided a detailed breakdown of the basis for its fees. Accordingly, the Court awards the Pham Plaintiffs the full requested amount of $358,934.75. The Court, however, does not find that the fees charged by Jesse Hill, representing the Buckmeyer Plaintiffs, to be reasonable. The Court found Mr. Hill's submissions to generally be duplicative of the work done by the Liner firm. The Court did not rely on his submissions in reaching its decision. Ultimately, it was the representations of the Liner firm upon which the Court relied. Accordingly, the Court awards the Buckmeyer Plaintiffs $90,000.00 in attorney fees.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: May 22, 2009

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

The twelve so-called Kerr factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to the acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. MacDougal, 58 F. Supp. 2d at 1104. 2

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Jeffrey L. Fillerup [e-mail] Jesse Landis Hill [e-mail] John Walshe Murray [e-mail] Matthew Brooks Borden [e-mail] Robert Anthony Franklin [e-mail] Ronald Scott Kravitz [e-mail] Suzanne L. Decker [e-mail]

Dated: May 22, 2009

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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