Cachet Financial Services v. C&J Associates, Inc.
Filing
282
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part #258 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/4/2020. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Case 5:16-cv-06862-EJD Document 282 Filed 08/04/20 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
CACHET FINANCIAL SERVICES,
7
Case No. 5:16-cv-06862-EJD
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
C&J ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,
10
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART CACHET’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS
Dkt. No. 258
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Plaintiff-in-Interpleader Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet”) seeks reimbursement of its
12
13
attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. No. 258. Specifically, Cachet seeks $170,455.17 in attorneys’
14
fees1 and $17,493.74 in costs for a total of $187,948.91. Defendant and counterclaimant Pacific
15
Diversified Insurance Services, Inc. (“Pacific”) filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 261. Pacific
16
contends that (1) Cachet is not a disinterested stakeholder, (2) the amount Cachet seeks is
17
excessive and (3) Cachet has not adequately documented its request. Id. Cachet filed a reply.
18
Dkt. No. 277. By order dated July 15, 2020, the Court directed Cachet to submit its billing records
19
for in camera review. Dkt. No. 280. The Court finds it appropriate to take the matter under
20
submission for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and General
21
Order 72-5. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Cachet’s
22
motion.
23
I.
Cachet initiated this interpleader action to resolve conflicting claims to $1,886,546.43 (the
24
25
Background
“Interpleaded Funds”). Cachet is a third party Automated Clearing House (“ACH”) service
26
27
28
1
Cachet does not seek fees incurred in connection with its summary judgment motion.
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06862-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CACHET’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
1
Case 5:16-cv-06862-EJD Document 282 Filed 08/04/20 Page 2 of 4
1
provider that processes payroll and related electronic funds transfers (“EFT”) transactions to the
2
payroll industry. The Interpleaded Funds came into Cachet’s possession as a result of its
3
contractual relationship with Pinnacle Workforce Solutions (“Pinnacle”). Cachet debited and
4
credited funds at Pinnacle’s direction.
In late 2016, Cachet determined that there were insufficient funds to complete the payroll
5
6
transfers directed by Pinnacle. When Pinnacle failed to cure the deficiency and ceased all
7
communication with Cachet, Cachet froze Pinnacle’s funds and alerted the authorities. Upon
8
further investigation, Cachet concluded that Pinnacle had been engaging in fraud.
Cachet initiated this suit in November of 2016 naming as defendants Pinnacle and each of
9
Pinnacle’s approximately 81 customers with potential claims to the Interpleaded Funds. Many
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
potential claimants notified Cachet’s counsel that they did not want to be involved in this action
12
and disclaimed any interest in the Interpleaded Funds; those potential claimants have been
13
dismissed. With interest, the Interpleaded Funds now total approximately $1,978,849.86.
14
II.
15
Standards
Title 28 United States Code section 2361 provides that “in any civil action of interpleader,”
16
the district court “shall hear and determine the case, and may discharge the plaintiff from further
17
liability. . . and make all appropriate orders to enforce its judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 2361. Under
18
this provision, courts have allowed attorneys’ fees to the interpleading plaintiff. Schirmer
19
Stevedoring Co., Ltd. v. Seaboard Stevedoring Corp., 306 F.2d 188, 193 (9th Cir. 1962). “The
20
reasons are that the plaintiff has benefited the claimants by promoting early litigation on
21
ownership of the fund, thus preventing dissipation [citation] and that the plaintiff should not have
22
to pay attorney fees in order to guard himself against the harassment of multiple litigation.” Id.
23
Thus, the plaintiff “should be awarded attorney fees for the services of his attorneys
24
interpleading.” Id. at 194.
25
26
27
28
The test for awarding fees in an interpleader action is “less rigorous” than the test used in
other contexts. Fidelity Nat. Title Co. v. U.S. Small Business Admin., No. 13-2030 KJM, 2014
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06862-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CACHET’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
2
Case 5:16-cv-06862-EJD Document 282 Filed 08/04/20 Page 3 of 4
1
WL 6390275, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014). An award of attorneys’ fees is usually appropriate
2
when: (1) the party seeking the fees is a disinterested stakeholder, (2) who has conceded liability,
3
(3) has deposited the disputed funds into court, and (4) has sought discharge from liability. Id.
4
“[I]f there is a contest between plaintiff and the interpleaded parties, either as to the correctness of
5
the amount deposited or as to any interest of plaintiff in the fund, the court may not, in the absence
6
of special circumstances, award attorney fees for the services of his attorneys in connection with
7
such contest.” Schirmer, 306 F.2d at 194. The amount of fees to be awarded to a plaintiff in
8
interpleader is “committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Trustees of Directors
9
Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426 as amended on denial of
reh’g, 255 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Schirmer, 306 F.2d at 194). “Examples of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
compensable fees include for preparation of a complaint, for service of process on the claimants,
12
and for preparing an order for discharge and dismissal.” Fidelity Nat. Title Co, 2014 WL
13
6390275, at *4 (citing Tise at 426-27).
14
III.
Discussion
15
As the plaintiff in this interpleader action, Cachet is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
16
Schirmer, 306 F.2d at 194. The test for awarding fees to Cachet is also satisfied, notwithstanding
17
Pacific’s arguments to the contrary: Cachet initiated suit as a disinterested stakeholder as to
18
$1,050,761.60, conceded it has no claim to this amount and deposited additional funds in
19
accordance with the Court’s order. Furthermore, soon after initiating the lawsuit Cachet
20
researched, located and nominated Hon. Richard Flier as Special Master, and he was appointed by
21
this Court to oversee distribution of the Interpleaded Funds. Cachet’s initiative in securing the
22
services of the Special Master benefited the claimants. On July 1, 2020, the Court discharged
23
Cachet from liability as to the Interpleaded Funds. Dkt. No. 265.
24
Although Cachet is entitled to attorneys’ fees, the Court finds that the requested amount is
25
excessive for two reasons. First, the fee request is excessive in that it includes fees expended in
26
connection with Cachet’s bankruptcy. Dkt. No. 258-2, ¶ 13. An award of fees in an interpleader
27
28
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06862-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CACHET’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
3
Case 5:16-cv-06862-EJD Document 282 Filed 08/04/20 Page 4 of 4
1
action “are ‘properly limited’ to those ‘incurred in filing the action and pursuing the
2
[stakeholder’s] release from liability.’” Fidelity Nat. Title Co., 2014 WL 6390275, at *4 (quoting
3
Tise, 234 F.3d at 426). The bankruptcy fees ($9,598.50) and costs ($1,891.95) will therefore be
4
deducted from Cachet’s request.
Second, as Pacific points out, at the outset of the case, Cachet asserted it was entitled to an
5
6
offset to recover its losses caused by Pinnacle’s fraud. Pacific and others objected and the Court
7
directed Cachet to deposit the amount Cachet had withheld as an offset, $835,748.83. Dkt. No.
8
181. Cachet is not entitled to recover any attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the contested
9
offset issue. See Fidelity Nat. Title Co., 2014 WL 6390275, at *4 (citing Hoover, Inc. v.
McCullough Indus., Inc., 351 F. Supp. 1023, 1031 (D. Ala. 1972) (limiting the fee award in light
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
of a contest between the interpleader plaintiff and the claimants over the correctness of the amount
12
deposited in an interpleader action)). The Court, however, rejects Pacific’s argument that Cachet
13
is not entitled to any fees whatsoever. Cachet made the initial deposit of $1,050,761.60 as a
14
disinterested stakeholder, and Cachet had a reasonable basis for asserting the offset for
15
$835,748.83 because it had been victimized by Pinnacle along with all of Pinnacle’s customers.
16
To account for the fees incurred in connection with the contested offset issue, the Court
17
will reduce Cachet’s non-bankruptcy fee request by 20%, i.e. $32,171.33. (The fee request of
18
$170,455.17 minus the bankruptcy fees of $9,598.50 equals $160,856.67, and this amount
19
multiplied by .20 equals $32,171.33).
20
IV.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Cachet’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Cachet is awarded $128,685.34 in attorneys’ fees and $15,601.79 in costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 4, 2020
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
Case No.: 5:16-cv-06862-EJD
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CACHET’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
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?