Carillo Property Investments, LLC v. Robinson et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting 5 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court awards Carillo $2,271.50 in attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 5/7/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

I

,

1

2

3
4

5
6

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

12

CARRILLO PROPERTY
INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No.: 3:17-cv-2003-BEN-NLS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES

v.
JENNIFER ROBINSON, RUCHELL
ROBINSON, and DOES 1-10,
INCLUSIVE,

[Doc. No. 5.]

Defendants.

17
18
19

On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff Carrillo Property Investments, LLC. ("Carrillo")

20

filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. §

21

54(d). Defendants have not responded to the Motion. For the reasons set forth below,

22

the Motion is GRANTED.

23

BACKGROUND

24

The facts and procedural history of this case are familiar to the Court and parties.

25

The Court's Order granting Plaintiffs Motion for Remand outlines in detail the relevant

26

facts and procedural history. Any critical facts or procedural history is noted in the

27

Court's analysis below.

28

///

3: l 7-cv-2003-BEN-NLS

1
2

DISCUSSION
Section 1447(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code authorizes the award of"just

3

costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the

4

removal." "Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney's fees under

5

[section 1447(c)] only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis

6

for seeking removal." Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).

7

As reflected in the Remand Order, Defendants had no objectively reasonable basis

8

for seeking removal. (Doc. No. 4.) Accordingly, the Court awarded Carrillo attorneys'

9

fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

10

Carrillo now seeks $2,271.50 for attorney's fees that have been incurred as a result

11

of the improper removal. In support, Carrillo provides the declaration of Attorney

12

Rachael Callahan. (Doc. No. 5-2.) Ms. Callahan avers that between her and contract

13

Attorney Michael G. Olinik, "7.7 work hours" were incurred preparing the Motion to

14

Remand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (Callahan Deel., ii 14.)

15
16
17
18
19
20

Motion to Remand
Attorney Olinik: 4.2 hours preparing the motion. (Olinik Deel., ii 9.)
Attorney Callahan: .5 hours revising the motion and preparing it for filing.
(Callahan Deel., ii 11.)
Motion for Attornevs' Fees
Attorney Olinik: 2.5 hours preparing the motion. (Olinik Deel., ii 10.)
Attorney Callahan: .5 hours revising the motion and preparing it for filing.
(Callahan Deel, ii 12.)

21
22

District Courts calculate awards for attorneys' fees using the "lodestar" method.

23

See Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., Inc., 224 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir. 2000); Morales v.

24

City ofSan Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). "The 'lodestar' is calculated by

25

multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the

26

litigation by a reasonable hourly rate." Morales, 96 F.3d at 363. In determining

27

reasonable fees, courts look to the prevailing market rates in the community in which the

28
2
3: l 7-cv-2003-BEN-NLS

,,

1

court sits. Schwarz v. Secy ofHealth & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 908 (9th Cir. 1995);

2

see also Camancho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008).

3

Ms. Callahan has been practicing law for approximately seven years and her hourly

ii 5.)

4

rate is $295 per hour. (Id.,

5

nine years and has previously been approved at a rate of $350 per hour in the San Diego

6

Superior Court. (Olinik Deel., ii 8.) These rates are reasonable in this community.

Mr. Olinik has been practicing law for approximately

Notably, Defendants did not respond to Carrillo's Motion to Remand or address

7
8

the issue of attorneys' fees in any manner. The fact that the Defendants failed to oppose

9

either motion implies that they recognized the meritless nature of the removal. 1

10

The Court finds that 7. 7 hours for preparation and revision of the Plaintiff's

11

Motion for Remand and Motion for Attorneys' Fees is reasonable as is the hourly rate of

12

$295.00. Accordingly, the Court awards attorneys' fees to Carrillo from the Defendants

13

in the amount of$2,271.50.

14

CONCLUSION

15

The Motion for Attorneys' Fees is therefore GRANTED. The Court awards

16

Carrillo $2,271.50 in at

17
18

DATED:. _ ___:._L__L__..L;~'J.,/_-

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 The

case record illustrates the Defendants had no reasonable explanation for the
removal action, they frustrated the summary nature of Plaintiff's unlawful detainer action
and forced the prolonged expenditure of resources in both state and federal court.
3
3: l 7-cv-2003-BEN-NLS