Williams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 184

ORDER GRANTING 164 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 10/30/2017. The 11/2/2017 hearing is VACATED. No appearance necessary. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15

ELIZABETH ANN WILLIAMS,

Case No. 5:13-cv-03387-EJD

Plaintiff,
16

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

v.
17
18

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Re: Dkt. No. 164

Defendant.
19
20
21

Following a jury trial, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. moves for an award of

22

attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff Elizabeth Ann Williams. Wells Fargo’s motion will be granted.

23
24

I.

BACKGROUND
Williams obtained a $492,800 home loan from Wells Fargo’s predecessor in 2000. Second

25

Am. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 10, Dkt. No. 29. The loan terms were stated in a promissory note and the

26

loan was secured by a deed of trust. Id. ¶ 1. In 2006, Williams obtained a $200,000 home equity

27

line of credit from the same bank. Id. ¶ 11. This loan was also secured by a deed of trust. Id.

28

Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1

1

Williams alleges that Wells Fargo failed to properly withdraw her monthly payments from

2

her checking account, leading to an “artificial default” and foreclosure on the second mortgage in

3

2008. Id. ¶¶ 17–29. Williams filed this action in 2013, in which she alleges a range of injuries,

4

including up to $2.2 million in credit damages.
A jury trial commenced on August 8, 2017. The jury returned a verdict in Wells Fargo’s

5
6

favor (Dkt. No. 161) and judgment was entered accordingly (Dkt. No. 162). Wells Fargo now

7

seeks to recover attorneys’ fees under the fee clauses in the promissory note and deed of trust.

8

Def.’s Mot. for Att’ys’ Fees (“Mot.”) 5, Dkt. No. 164.

9
10

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
“Under the American Rule, the prevailing litigant is ordinarily not entitled to collect

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

reasonable attorney’s fees from the losing party.” Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas

12

& Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443, 448 (2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). However,

13

attorneys’ fees can be recovered under statutory provisions or the terms of a contract. Id. “In a

14

diversity case, the law of the state in which the district court sits determines whether a party is

15

entitled to attorney fees, and the procedure for requesting an award of attorney fees is governed by

16

federal law.” Carnes v. Zamani, 488 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, state law governs the

17

enforceability of a contract’s attorneys’ fees provision.

18
19
20
21
22
23

In California, Civil Code § 1717(a) governs fee applications stemming from contract
actions:
In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides
that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that
contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the
prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party
prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in
the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in
addition to other costs.

24

The court determines whether a party has prevailed on the contract for the purposes of awarding

25

fees. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b)(1). The prevailing party on a contract is the party that recovered a

26

greater relief in the action on the contract. Id. § 1717(b)(2).

27
28

“Under California law, when a party to a contract dispute obtains a simple unqualified win
Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
2

1

in litigation, a court has no discretion to deny attorneys’ fees pursuant to a valid contractual

2

attorneys’ fees clause under section 1717.” Albizo v. Wachovia Mortg., No. 2:11-CV-2991 AC,

3

2013 WL 5425129, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013).

4

III.

5

DISCUSSION
Under the lodestar method of evaluating a request for attorneys’ fees, the lodestar is the

6

number of hours spent on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hanlon v. Chrysler

7

Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998). The lodestar “may be adjusted upward or downward

8

to account for several factors including the quality of the representation, the benefit obtained for

9

the class, the complexity and novelty of the issues presented, and the risk of nonpayment.” Id.
Here, Wells Fargo requests an award of $262,260.47 under the attorneys’ fees provisions

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

at paragraph 7(E) of the promissory note and covenant 7 of the deed of trust. Mot. 5–6, 16. That

12

request is based on billing rates of $365/hour for attorney Mark Flewelling (20.2 hours),

13

$340/hour for attorney Robert Bailey (116.9 hours), $275/hour for attorney Michael Rapkine

14

(917.4 hours), and $160/hour for paralegal Helene Saller (45.5 hours), as well as ancillary work

15

performed by other attorneys and paralegals. Mot. 13; Flewelling Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 164-1. This

16

case involved two amended complaints, fully briefed motions to dismiss and for a preliminary

17

injunction, extensive discovery, pretrial motions, and a full jury trial.

18

Based on counsel’s declarations and the circumstances of this case, the Court finds the

19

requested fees to be reasonable under the lodestar method. See Sato v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB,

20

No. 5:11-CV-00810 EJD, 2013 WL 61103, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2013) (finding that similar

21

billing rates from the same law firm involved in this case were “commensurate with those charged

22

in the local legal community”).

23

Williams does not dispute the reasonableness of the amount of Wells Fargo’s fees request.

24

Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. for Att’ys’ Fees (“Opp’n”), Dkt. No. 171. Nor does Williams dispute

25

that the relevant loan agreements contain valid fees provisions that apply to this case. Id. Instead,

26

Williams argues that this Court has “discretion to refuse to enforce a contractual attorney’s fees

27

provision where it would be inequitable and unreasonable.” Id. at 1–2. Williams argues that an

28

Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
3

1

attorneys’ fees award would be inequitable because, when she filed this case, “she was in a rush to

2

prevent a foreclosure and was not paying attention to the risks of the fees provision in her contract

3

of adhesion.” Id. at 3. She further argues that a fees award would be unjust because she now owes

4

$365,000 in arrears. Id.

5

Wells Fargo responds that the Court may not deny a fees award here because an award

6

under § 1717 is mandatory, not discretionary. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a) (“the party who is

7

determined to be the party prevailing on the contract . . . shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s

8

fees in addition to other costs”) (emphasis added); see also Def.’s Reply in Support of Mot. for

9

Att’ys’ Fees (“Reply”) 2–4, Dkt. No. 172.
The Court finds that, even if § 1717(a) is discretionary, a fees award is equitable under the

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

circumstances of this case. Williams is a sophisticated real estate investor who owns

12

approximately twenty buildings consisting of approximately 100 rental units. Id. at 7. She testified

13

that she has $11 million in equity in her rental holdings, and she testified further that she has

14

approximately $900,000 in liquid assets at her disposal. Id. In addition, Williams was aware of the

15

attorneys’ fees provisions in her loan agreements when she brought this action. SAC ¶¶ 80, 89.

16

Accordingly, the Court finds that a fees award is warranted.

17

IV.

18

CONCLUSION
Wells Fargo’s motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED.

19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:13-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
4