United States of America for the use and benefit of Porges Electrical Group, Inc., a California Corporation v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America

Filing 332

Order denying 316 Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Prejudgment Interest; granting 317 Plaintiff's Motion to be Determined as the Prevailing Party and for an Award of Attorney Fees and Non-Taxable Costs; granting 315 Plaintiff's Motion for Bill of Costs; granting 314 Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Prejudgment Interest. Signed by Judge Consuelo Bland Marshall on 4/13/2022. (fad, )

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

TERRITORY OF GUAM

10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for
PORGES
ELECTRICAL GROUP, INC.,

11
12
13

Case No.: CV 15-00024
ORDER RE: 1) DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’
FEES, COSTS AND
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST; 2)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO BE
DETERMINED TO BE THE
PREVAILING PARTY AND FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND NON-TAXABLE
COSTS; 3) PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF
COSTS; AND 4) PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

v.

14

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND
SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA
and PATRICIA I. ROMERO, INC.,
doing business as PACIFIC WEST
BUILDERS,

15
16
17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23

-

24
25
26
27

Costs 1

. (Dkt. Nos.

1

See

28
1

Bill of Costs

was

1
I. BACKGROUND

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

reasonable

12
and

13
14

rela

15
16
17

on th

18

against

19

found for Defendant PWB on its

.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Redesign. (Id

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II. STATEMENT OF THE LAW

11
12
13

d and who have

14
15
16

Unless a federal statute, these rules,

17
--

18

--should be

19
20
21
2

22
23

2

See Fleming v. Quigley

24
25
26
27

-shifting unless
Camacho

Fam. P’ship v. Patricia I. Romero, Inc.
amended sub nom. Camacho Fam. P’ship v. Patricia I. Romero, Inc.,
fees

Senato v. Querimit, 1994 WL
G.C.A. § 26601 is

28
3

1
2
-

3
4

G.C.A. § 21

5
6
7
8
Moreover,

9
10
11
12

on

13

t or not, shall be
other

14
III. DISCUSSION

15
16

A.

Prevailing Party

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Califo
3

26
27
28
4

3

1
2
3
4

Rahmani v. Park

see also Guam Mem’l

5

Hosp. Auth. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 2015 Gu

6
7
rule as the “sole

8
9
10
Rahmani

11
12
13
14
15

Id. see also Camacho Fam. P’ship, 2018 WL 1413174, at *4 (“where

16
-

17
18
19
20

the other or should bear their own fees, or

21

Id.

22

,a
.

23
issues in this litigation

24
25

goals. See Rahmani
T

26
27
28

Defendants stated “Porges sued PWB for
5

Rahmani

1
2

64. E

thus

3
4

B.

Indemnity Provisions of Subcontracts

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

not l

16
17
18
19
20

In Camacho Fam. P’ship v. Patricia I. Romero, Inc.,
Defendant,
ovided that “

21
22
23
24
25
fees

26
27

a

28
6

1

regarding awarding
Id

2

Camacho

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Id.

11
12
13
14
15

legal fees
r, the

16
fees

17

-

18

Id

19
20

then the

-

Id

21
-

22

the

23
Id.

24
,

25

Defendant

26
27
28

to thirdUnder

,
7

would be

1
2
s.

3
s

4
s

5

-

6
4

7
8

C.

Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

9
10
11
12

fees

,431.50 in fees

13
(the

14
.5

15
16

Hensley v. Eckerhar, 461 U.S. 424, 433

17
18
19

Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp.

20

see also S.J. Gargrave Syndicate At Lloyds v. Black Const.

21
22

4

23

Camacho

24
-

25
26
27
28

5

I
fees.
Moses, 24 Cal.
was also

See Ketchum v.

8

1

Corp.
lodestar figure that results

2
3
PLCM Grp. v. Drexler

4

lodestar, i.e.,

5
6
7

rate.

8
9

skill, and

10

Chalmers v. City of Los

Angeles

. “It is well established that the

11
PLCM Grp., 22 Cal. 4th at 1096.

12
1.

13

Hours Reasonably Expended

14
15
16
l Gauthier also attests

17
18
-

19

e

20
21
id

22
23
24

FTB on the litigation were reasonable.

25
26
27
28

6

65.70
890.00
litigation. (See
9

6

1
2
3

17,

4
-

5
6
7

hours

b
2.

on the litigation were reasonable.

Reasonable Hourly Rates

8
is a full-

9
10

in

business law,

11
the

12
13
(Id

14

See Aguero v.

15
16

Calvo, 2016 WL

(“An established

17
18
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523

19
20

F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008

PLCM Grp., 22 Cal. 4th at 1095 (“The reasonable

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10

sonable. See Aguero, 2016 WL 1050251, at *3.

1
3.

2

Defendant Request a Reduction of Fees

3
4
5
6
7
.

8
9
10

*

11

*

*

12
7

13
FTB

14

fees
is reasonable.

15
16

in

D.

Non-Taxable Costs

17
18
19
1.

20

Camacho Firm Costs
nontaxable

21

, and

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

.

7

see
11

1
2
3
4
5
-

6

, and awards

7

-

8
2.

9

FTB Costs

10
11
8

12
13
9

14

(

.

15
16
17
18

38
-

19
20
21
22

8

-

FTB as

23

(

24
25
26

f
9

-

FTB as

27

2019

28
12

trial in this

1
2
3
.

4
the Court does not a

5
6
7

“
Berkeley Cement, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 30

8

. The Court finds the

9

.

10
in

11

but no

12
13
14
-

15
-taxabl

16
17
18

Plaintiff

19

E.

-

Taxable Costs

20
10

21
22
23

n

24
25
26
27

10

28
13

1

Fed

See

Unless a
--other than

2
--should be allowed to the prevailing party

3
4
5

F.

Prejudgment Interest
1.

6

Interest Provision of Subcontracts

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

therefore is not entitled

See Camacho Fam. P’ship, 2018

20
21
22
23
24

(

Great W. Drywall

25
26
27

2.

28
14

1

Defendants PWB

2
007.69 “

3

,

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
in are those where “the defendant

12
13

Guam Top Builders, Inc. v. Tanota Partners,

14
15
16

interest

17
18

Camacho Fam. P’ship

Guam Top Builders, Inc.,

19
20
Id.

21
a.

22

Unpaid Balance of Red Horse Subcontract

23
11

24
25
26
27
28

11

See

-27 and 15:3-5 (“Defendants did not
15

See id. at *3

1
2

ing

3
4
5
6
7
8

Phoenix Eng’g &

9
10

Supply Inc. v. Universal Elec. Co., 104 F.3d 1137

11
12
rd

13
14
15
12

16

b.

17

Extra Work Claims

18
19
20
21
-trial

22
B

23
known to

24
d

25
26
27

12

Cf. Milhouse v. Travelers Com. Ins. Co.

28
16

1
4 in extra

2

13

3
c.

4

Time Period for Interest

5
6
7
8
9
10

onwards

11
12

to

13

“In the event that the ba

14
15
16
17
18
14

19
20

13

21

See Milhouse

22
23

gree on the
Camacho Fam. P’ship

k

24

interest is not all
Guam Top Builders
Asia Pac. Hotel Guam, Inc. v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd

25
26
27
28

14

the inde
17

1
2
3
15

4
5
6
7
8

In the even

9
10

-

11
12
13
14
15
16
See Camacho Fam. P'ship

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

s

25
26
27

15

28
18

1
2
3
,

4
5
6

began to run seven

7

. 16

8
9

See Camacho Fam. P’ship

10
11
interest

12
13
14
.

15
d.

16

Rate of Interest

17
18 G.C.A. § 47106.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

16

26

—

27
28

right
after PWB
19

1
,

2
3

to

4
of

5
6

See 18

G.C.A. § 47106.

7
8
IV. CONCLUSION

9
10
11

1.

DENIES

2.

GRANTS

12
13

Non-

14
15
16

3.

GRANTS

17

4.

GRANTS

.

18
therefore awarded the following against

19
20

:

21
22

1.

23
24

2.

25
26

3.
Baird, LLC

27
28

-tax

4.

20

1
2

5.

3

and

6.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

DATED:

2022.

___________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21