First Financial Security, Inc. v. Freedom Equity Group, LLC

Filing 108

Order by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re: Dkt. No. 89 , Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (hrllc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2016)

Download PDF
E-filed 11/30/2016 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FIRST FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC., Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, LLC, ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES Re: Dkt. No. 89 Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.15-cv-01893-HRL In its October 7, 2016, order on plaintiff First Financial Security’s (“FFS”) motion for 12 13 sanctions related to defendant Freedom Equity Group’s (“FEG”) failure to comply with this 14 court’s discovery orders, the court stated: 15 FFS is entitled to the attorney fees and costs reasonably incurred in the course of bringing its sanctions motion and filing its supplemental briefing because FEG, by repeatedly failing to comply with discovery orders, caused FFS to incur these fees and expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). FEG’s failures were not substantially justified and no other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. 16 17 18 19 Dkt. No. 88. FFS now moves the court for $22,393.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,353.88 in costs 20 related to its sanctions motion and supplemental briefings. Dkt. No. 89. FEG objects solely to the 21 number of hours counsel for FFS spent on what FEG states is a straightforward matter. Dkt. No. 22 96. For the reasons below, the court orders FEG to pay FFS $21,429.50 in fees and $1,353.88 in 23 costs. 24 25 DISCUSSION In reviewing applications for attorneys’ fees, the court begins with the lodestar method and 26 multiplies the number of hours reasonably spent by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. 27 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The court reviews time records submitted by the applicant 28 to determine whether the hours were reasonably incurred or if any hours were “unnecessary, 1 duplicative or excessive,” or inadequately documented. True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. 2 McKesson Corp., No. 13-cv-02219-HSG (DMR), 2015 WL 3453459, at *1 (N.D. Cal., May 29, 3 2015). To determine reasonable hourly rates, “the court must look to the prevailing rate in the 4 community—generally, the forum in which the district court sits—for similar work performed by 5 attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Id. The fee applicant bears the burden 6 to “produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits—that the requested 7 rates” are reasonable in light of prevailing rates in the community. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 8 895, n.11 (1984). Courts may also award fees reasonably incurred in preparing motions for 9 attorneys’ fees. True Health Chiropractic, 2015 WL 3453459, at *1. 10 FEG has not challenged the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by FFS’s United States District Court Northern District of California 11 timekeepers. These rates are between $310-$340 per hour for FFS’s attorneys, and $180 per hour 12 for its paralegal. Dkt. No. 89, Davidson Decl., Hager Decl., Solomon Decl., Seguin Decl. Though 13 FFS did not submit declarations or affidavits beyond those of the attorneys claiming fees to 14 establish the reasonableness of these hourly rates, FFS did cite to several cases discussing rates 15 prevailing in the Bay Area and the Northern District of California for similar types of work. See 16 True Health Chiropractic, 2015 WL 3453459, at *2 (citing In re Magsafe Apple Power Adapter 17 Litig., No. 5:09-CV-01911-EJD, 2015 WL 428105, at *12 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2015) (finding rates 18 of $560-$800 reasonable for partners, $285-$510 reasonable for associates, and $150-$240 19 reasonable for paralegals)); Ruch v. AM Retail Grp., Inc., No. 14-cv-05352-MEJ, 2016 WL 20 5462451, at *11 (N.D. Cal., Sep. 28, 2016) (citing cases finding hourly rates in excess of those 21 claimed here to be reasonable). The court is satisfied from this presentation that the hourly rates 22 charged by FFS’s timekeepers are in line with those prevailing in the community. 23 In challenging the reasonableness of the hours FFS spent on its motion for sanctions and 24 supplemental briefing, FEG does not point to any particular time entries that were unreasonable, 25 but merely objects to the total time spent. FFS claims fees for 59.1 hours of attorney time and 13 26 hours of paralegal time related to its motion for sanctions and supplemental briefing and for 4 27 hours of attorney time related to preparing the present motion for fees. 28 As an initial matter, courts in this district have found this approximate number of hours 2 1 reasonable for motions for discovery sanctions. True Health Chiropractic, 2015 WL 3453459, at 2 *2-4; Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc., No. 13-cv-4608-RS (KAW), 2015 WL 154522 (N.D. Cal., 3 Jan. 12, 2015). Additionally, even for relatively straightforward motions, total amounts of time 4 that seem high at first glance may still be reasonable when broken down and explained. Ferland 5 v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Some systematic perusal of the 6 actual billing entries will often confirm that the reason for the seemingly high fee was not 7 inefficiency, but careful compliance with the attorneys’ responsibilities.”). As stated above, the 8 court must review the time records submitted to determine if the hours claimed are adequately 9 documented and to decide if any are “unnecessary, duplicative or excessive.” True Health 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Chiropractic, 2015 WL 3453459, at *1. After reviewing each of the time entries submitted, the court finds that the time claimed for 12 preparing the sanctions motion and supplemental materials is adequately documented and 13 reasonable, with two exceptions. First, the court subtracts .4 hours/$126 from the time/amount 14 charged on May 2, 2016, by Clifford S. Davidson, because counsel for FFS failed to subtract the 15 time spent on other matters from the block billing entry on that date. See Dkt. No. 89, Davidson 16 Decl., Ex. A. Second, the court subtracts .5 hours/$157.50 from the time/amount charged on July 17 12, 2016, by Clifford S. Davidson, because the task for which the time is claimed is connected to a 18 different (albeit related) proceeding. Id. Finally, the court subtracts 2 hours/$680 from the request 19 for fees related to preparing the present motion, as FFS failed to submit adequate documentation 20 for this time and only submits an estimate of the time spent. See Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc., 21 No. 13-cv-4608-RS (KAW), 2015 WL 1545422, at *7 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2015) (reducing fees 22 because the plaintiff relied on estimates of time spent). The court thus subtracts a total of $963.50 23 from the fees requested, and awards $21,429.50 in fees. 24 25 26 27 28 FEG does not object to the $1,353.88 in costs requested by FFS, and the court finds these costs well documented and reasonable. CONCLUSION The court orders FEG to pay FFS $21,429.50 in fees and $1,353.88 in costs. FEG shall pay these amounts within 14 days of the date of this order. 3 1 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 11/30/2016 3 4 HOWARD R. LLOYD United States Magistrate Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?