Fresh Packing Corporation v. Roberto P. Guicho

Filing 39

ORDER Requesting Supplemental Briefing. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 4/4/2016. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

FRESH PACKING CORPORATION,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

Case No. 15-CV-01551-LHK
ORDER REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

v.

Re: ECF No. 37
ROBERTO P. GUICHO, SR., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff Fresh Packing Corporation (“Plaintiff”) moved for default

19

judgment against Defendants Roberto P. Guicho, Sr. and Guicho’s Produce (collectively,

20

“Defendants”). ECF No. 37. Among the requested damages, Plaintiff asks for attorney’s fees and

21

costs. Courts in the Ninth Circuit calculate attorney’s fees using the lodestar method, whereby a

22

court multiplies “the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation

23

by a reasonable hourly rate.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir.

24

2008). A party seeking attorney’s fees bears the burden of demonstrating that the rates requested

25

are “in line with the prevailing market rate of the relevant community.” Carson v. Billings Police

26

Dep’t, 470 F.3d 889, 891 (9th Cir. 2006). Generally, “the relevant community is the forum in

27

which the district court sits.” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979. Typically, “[a]ffidavits of the plaintiffs’

28

1
Case No. 15-CV-01551-LHK
ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

1

attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate determinations

2

in other cases . . . are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of

3

Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining a reasonable

4

amount of time spent, the Court should only award fees based on “the number of hours reasonably

5

expended on the litigation” and exclude “hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise

6

unnecessary.” Greenfield Fresh, Inc. v. Berti Produce-Oakland, Inc., 2014 WL 5700695, at *5

7

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2014) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–34 (1983)).

8
9

In support of Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, Plaintiff submits an affidavit
from one of Plaintiff’s attorneys. ECF No. 37-1. However, the affidavit does not provide any
billing records, or any breakdown of how many hours were expended by each attorney or how the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

hours were expended. Plaintiff also does not explain what portion of the total requested fees and

12

costs are attributable to costs, or provide any description of the costs incurred. Moreover, Plaintiff

13

offers no justification for the $4,122.50 “estimate for attorneys’ fees and costs through issuance of

14

the requested default judgment.” Lastly, Plaintiff does not provide any “rate determinations in

15

other cases,” their curriculum vitae, or other evidence to justify counsels’ requested rates. See

16

United Steelworkers of Am., 896 F.2d at 407.

17

Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the rates requested and the hours expended

18

are reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide supplemental briefing justifying

19

Plaintiff’s requested hours and rates, as well as the requested costs, by Friday, April 8, 2016.

20

Defendants may file a supplemental opposition by Friday, April 15, 2016.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: April 4, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 15-CV-01551-LHK
ORDER REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING