Avila et al v. Naimat Kadah International, Inc. et al

Filing 80

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 60 Motion for Attorney Fees.(psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
NAIMAT KADAH INTERNATIONAL INC. )
DBA KABAB AND CURRY’S, MOHAMMAD )
)
USMAN, DOES 1 TO 10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
MISAEL AVILA AND SERGIO AVILA,

Case No. 5:11-cv-01771 PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY FEES

17

The court has before it a motion to recover attorney fees incurred in bringing a successful

18

motion to enforce a settlement agreement. Defendant Naimat Kadah International Inc. ostensibly

19

filed an opposition brief, but the first eight pages of that ten-and-a-half-page brief argue

20
21

exclusively that the court erred in granting the motion to enforce settlement, and the court should
reconsider its decision. 1 Especially in the absence of any suggestion that the requirements for

22
23
24

leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Civ. L. R. 7-9(a) have been met, the court declines
Naimat’s invitation to sua sponte reverse its decision. The court turns instead to the merits of the

25
26
27
28

1

See Docket No. 62. The court addressed the major concerns raised by Naimat in its original order
enforcing the settlement agreement. See Docket No. 59 at 3-4.
1

Case No. 5:11-cv-01771 PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

1

instant motion.
The settlement agreement in this matter specifically provides that “plaintiffs . . . are

2
3

entitled to reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, in enforcing the Agreement.” 2 Naimat

4

presents two substantive arguments as to why that provision should not be applied to allow

5

attorney fees here. First, it alleges that Adam Wang, counsel for Plaintiffs Misael and Sergio

6
Avila, improperly utilized “block-billing” such that the court cannot evaluate the reasonableness of
7
8
9

his fees, and second, it argues that the motion does not demonstrate the level of detail or quality
legal work that would justify an award of attorneys fees. 3

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Having reviewed the billing records submitted, 4 the court cannot agree with Naimat’s

11

characterization of Wang’s billing practices. The largest single entry is 6.75 hours spent reviewing

12

the settlement agreement and communication history surrounding it, conducting research, and

13
14

drafting the motion to enforce. A single attorney conducted this work, and while Wang admits that
it does not represent “the exemplar of legal research,” 5 it involved detailed document review and a

15
16

legal question outside his area of expertise, so the inefficiency is understandable. This is a far cry

17

from practices this court has found unacceptable in the past, such as “separating the hours only by

18

motion.” 6 As to Naimat’s second complaint, the court finds that it is reasonable to spend 35.65

19
20
21
22
23

2

See Docket No. 61-1.

24

3

See Docket No. 62 at 9-10.

25

4

See Docket No. 61-1.

26

5

See Docket No. 66 at 1.

27

6

28

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:11-01846-LHK (PSG), 2012 WL
5451411 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012).
2

Case No. 5:11-cv-01771 PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

1

hours, effectively four days, researching, drafting, and arguing two sets of motions and replies. 7

2

Avila’s motion for attorney fees therefore is GRANTED in the full amount of $17,049.26.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: March 25, 2014

5

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7

The court includes the two hours disclosed in Avila’s reply brief, see Docket No. 67 at 3, in this
calculation, meaning that the full total covers both the motion to enforce the settlement agreement
and the motion for attorney fees.
3

Case No. 5:11-cv-01771 PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES