Mahajan v. Boxcar Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 75

ORDER Awarding Plaintiff Damages and Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 74 , by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 4/23/2019.(swest)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00533-CMA-SKC
RAKESH MAHAJAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOXCAR HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado LLC,
NICK GULOTTA, and
CARRIE GULOTTA,
Defendants.
ORDER AWARDING PLAINTIFF DAMAGES AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Rakesh Mahajan’s Updated
Declaration Calculating Damages (Doc. ## 73, 73-1) and his Motion for Attorney Fees
and Costs (Doc. # 74). For the reasons described below, the Court awards damages to
Plaintiff and grants his Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
I.

BACKGROUND

The Court’s January 31, 2019 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment provides a thorough recitation of the factual and procedural background of
this case. See (Doc. # 72.) That Order is incorporated herein by reference, and the
facts will be repeated only to the extent necessary to address the filings presently
before the Court.

Plaintiff initiated this action on March 5, 2018, asserting two causes of action:
(1) breach of contract of three Notes against Defendant Boxcar Holdings, LLC
(“Defendant Boxcar”), and (2) breach of contract of a Guaranty against Defendants Nick
Gulotta and Carrie Gulotta (the “Gulotta Defendants”). (Doc. # 8.)
On January 31, 2019, this Court entered summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on
both claims. (Doc. # 72.) As to damages, because it had been nearly five months since
Plaintiff last calculated the damages he was due under the three Notes and the
Guaranty, the Court ordered Plaintiff to submit an updated affidavit as to principal and
interest Defendants owed him. (Id. at 15–16.) The Court gave Defendants seven days
from the date Plaintiff filed his updated affidavit to file a response, if any, to Plaintiff’s
calculation of damages. (Id. at 16.) With respect to Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees
and costs, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a motion within thirty days. (Id.)
On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff submitted an updated declaration concerning his
claim for damages. (Doc. # 73-1.) Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s
calculation of damages.
On February 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
(Doc. # 74.) Defendants have not filed any responses to the Motion.
II.

PLAINTIFF’S UPDATED DECLARATION CALCULATING DAMAGES

The Court previously explained why Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment
and an award of damages in its January 31, 2019 Order. See (Doc. # 72.) All that is
left for the Court is to determine the amount of damages Plaintiff is entitled to recover
from Defendants.
2

In his Updated Declaration Calculating Damages, Plaintiff incorporated his
previous declaration regarding damages (Doc. # 49-1 at 109–11), which in turn
incorporated a previously-filed explanation of how he calculated damages under the
Notes and Guaranty, see (Doc. # 33). The Court is satisfied by Plaintiff’s Updated
Declaration and the explanations he incorporates from previous filings because Plaintiff
clearly and concisely shows how he calculated damages by way of a chart that takes
into account the loan principals, interest rates, payments made, and late fees. See
(Doc. # 73-1 at 2.) Defendants have not objected to Plaintiff’s calculations.
Accordingly, the Court enters judgment in the amount of $1,428,590.88 in favor
of Plaintiff and against Defendant Boxcar for its breach of contract of the three Notes. It
enters judgment in the amount of $857,666.07 in favor of Plaintiff and against the
Gulotta Defendants for their breach of contract of the Guaranty.
III.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

Plaintiff asserts in his Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs that the “unequivocal
language” of the Notes and Guaranty “require Defendants to reimburse [him] for his
attorney fees and costs incurred in enforcing the agreements.” (Doc. # 74 at 1–2.) He
requests that the Court “award him $71,577.65, his reasonable attorney fees and costs.”
(Id. at 8.) Defendants have not responded to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and
Costs.

3

A.

LEGAL STANDARD
1.

Entitlement to attorney fees and costs under contractual provisions

Colorado follows the American Rule that in the absence of a statute, court rule,
or private contractual provision to the contrary, attorney fees are not recoverable by the
prevailing party. Morris v. Belfor USA Grp., Inc., 201 P.3d 1253, 1259 (Colo. App.
2008) (citing In re Estate of Klarner, 113 P.3d 150, 157 (Colo. 2005)). “Whether a
contract provides for an award of attorney fees is a question of interpretation that [the
Court] review[s] de novo.” Butler v. Lembeck, 182 P.2d 1185, 1188 (Colo. App. 2007).
“It is axiomatic that a contract should be interpreted ‘according to the plain and ordinary
meaning of its terms.’” Morris, 201 P.3d at 1259 (quoting Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d
911, 913 (Colo. 2006)). Accordingly, fee-shifting provisions in a contract are to be
interpreted in a common-sense manner. Butler, 182 P.3d at 1189 (citing Agritrack, Inc.
v. DeJohn Housemoving, Inc., 25 P.3d 1187, 1192 (Colo. 2001)).
2.

Reasonableness of attorney fees

Determination of the amount and reasonableness of attorney fees is within the
district court’s discretion. Wright v. U-Let-Us Skycap Servs., Inc., 648 F. Supp. 1216,
1218 (D. Colo. 1986). When evaluating a motion for attorney fees, the Court follows the
three-step process set forth in Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546 (10th Cir. 1983),
overruled on other grounds, Penn. v. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483
U.S. 711, 725 (1987).
First, the court determines the number of hours reasonably spent by counsel.
Malloy v. Monahan, 73 F.3d 1012, 1017 (10th Cir. 1996); Ramos, 713 F.2d at 553.
4

Factors considered in this reasonableness determination include: (1) whether the
amount of time spent on a particular task appears reasonable in light of the complexity
of the case, the strategies pursued, and the responses necessitated by an opponent’s
maneuvering; (2) whether the amount of time spent is reasonable in relation to
counsel’s experience; and (3) whether the billing entries are sufficiently detailed,
showing how much time was allotted to a specific task. Rocky Mountain Christian
Church v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Boulder Cnty., No. 06-cv-00554, 2010 WL 3703224,
at *2-3 (D. Colo. Sept. 13, 2010). Courts need not “identify and justify every hour
allowed or disallowed, as doing so would run counter to the Supreme Court’s warning
that a ‘request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.’” Malloy,
73 F.3d at 1018 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437); Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205, 2216
(2011) (“The essential goal in shifting fees . . . is to do rough justice, not to achieve
auditing perfection.”).
Second, the court must determine a reasonable hourly rate of compensation,
based on “what lawyers of comparable skill and experience [in the given practice area]
would charge for their time.” Ramos, 713 F.2d at 555. “The party seeking the award
has the burden of persuading the court that the hours expended and the rate sought are
both reasonable.” LaSelle v. Public Serv. Co. of Colo. Severance Pay Plan, 988 F.
Supp. 1348, 1351 (D. Colo. 1997); Malloy, 73 F.3d at 1018.
Third, the court multiplies the reasonable hourly rate with the number of hours
reasonably expended to determine the “lodestar” amount. LaSelle, 988 F. Supp. at
1351; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.
5

B.

ANALYSIS
1.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs pursuant to the plain
language of the Notes and the Guaranty

The three Notes state that “Maker [Defendant Boxcar] . . . agrees to pay all costs
and expenses, including attorney’s fees, which may be incurred in the collection of this
Note or any part thereof, whether or not litigation is commenced.” (Doc. # 49-1 at 3–4,
21–22, 26–27.) The Guaranty states “Guarantor [the Gulotta Defendants] must
reimburse Creditor [Plaintiff] for all costs, attorney fees and other expenses that Creditor
expends or incurs in collecting or attempting to collect the Indebtedness or in enforcing
this Guaranty.” (Id. at 17.) The language of these contracts make indisputably clear
that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs he has incurred in this
litigation.
2.

Plaintiff’s requested attorney fees are reasonable

Plaintiff requests $66,095.18 in attorney fees. (Doc. # 74 at 4–5.) Applying the
three-step process set forth in Ramos, 713 F.2d at 553–59, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff’s request is reasonable and awards him that amount in attorney fees.
At the first step, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel spent a reasonable
number of hours—158.1 hours—on this litigation. See (Doc. # 74 at 6.) As Plaintiff
explains in his Motion, given that “Defendants fought Plaintiff at every juncture of the
case” and a significant amount of money was at stake, counsel’s legal services were
necessary. These legal services included “preparing the complaint, coordinating
service of the complaint (which was complex), managing document discovery, attending
two depositions, briefing on the motion for summary judgment, drafting the motion for
6

default judgment and motions to compel, and handling various discovery and
scheduling disputes and hearings.” (Id.) The monthly invoices for Plaintiff’s counsel
detail this work. See (Doc. ## 74-2–74-12.)
Second, Plaintiff has satisfied his burden of persuading the Court that the rates
sought for his counsel’s work is reasonable. See LaSelle, 988 F.Supp. at 1351.
Plaintiff adequately explains the hourly rates of each of the three atttorneys and one
paralegal who worked on his behalf, what their roles were, and how they expended the
hours they billed to him. (Doc. # 74 at 4–5.) Based on the absence of any objections
by Defendants and the Court’s own familiarity with the rates charged by lawyers in the
Denver metropolitan area, the Court concludes counsel’s rates are reasonable.
At the third step, multiplying the hours worked by Plaintiff’s counsel by their
hourly rates, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that he is entitled to award of $66,905.18 in
attorney fees.
3.

Plaintiff’s requested costs are reasonable

Plaintiff also requests an award of $4,672.47 in costs. (Id. at 7.) The Court has
reviewed Plaintiff’s accounting of these costs and the corresponding exhibit (Doc. # 7413) and is satisfied that this request for costs is reasonable. Defendants have not
objected to this award of costs.
IV.

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED to enter final judgment in the amount of
$1,428,590.88 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Boxcar Holdings, LLC, and to

7

enter final judgment in the amount of $857,666.07 in favor of Plaintiff and against the
Defendants Nick Gulotta and Carrie Gulotta. It is
FURTHERED ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs
(Doc. # 74) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees and costs against all
Defendants, in the amount of $71,577.65.

DATED: April 23, 2019

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

8