Donovan et al. v. Flamingo Palms Villas, LLC, et al.

Filing 1334

ORDER Denying #1326 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/17/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
FRAN DONOVAN et al.,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
vs.
11
FLAMINGO PALMS VILLAS, LLC et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-01675-RCJ-NJK
ORDER

14

This case arises out of an alleged conspiracy to defraud investors in a condominium

15

development in Las Vegas. A Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 1326) is pending before the Court.

16

For the reasons given herein, the Court denies the motion.

17

I.

18

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After several years of pretrial practice against dozens of Defendants, Plaintiffs prevailed

19

in part at a jury trial against Defendant Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co.

20

(“Commonwealth”) on their claims for breach of the duty to indemnify and the duty to defend.

21

(See Verdict, ECF No. 1249). Plaintiffs previously objected to Commonwealth’s proposed form

22

of judgment because it included the phrase “inclusive of attorney’s fees and costs,” which had,

23

according to Plaintiffs, not yet been adjudicated. Commonwealth replied that fees and costs had

24

been determined by the jury and that there was nothing left for the Court to adjudicate with

25

respect to fees and costs. In a detailed order, the Court agreed with Commonwealth that the jury

1

had awarded Plaintiffs attorney’s fees in the present action as a measure of damages, just as

2

Plaintiffs had asked it to. (See Order, Sept. 16, 2013, ECF No. 1296). The Court then entered

3

Judgment, accordingly. Soon thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting attorney’s fees under

4

Nevada Revised Statutes section 18.010, which provides for attorney’s fees, inter alia, wherever

5

a Plaintiff prevails but recovers less than $20,000. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.010(2)(a). In its

6

order denying the motion, the Court again noted that attorney’s fees had been litigated and

7

determined by the jury as a direct measure of damages, and that even if attorney’s fees had not

8

already been litigated, Plaintiffs’ argument that those Plaintiffs individually receiving less than

9

the statutory threshold for fee shifting should be awarded their fees pro rata under section 18.010

10

was frivolous. (See Order 2:6–3:8, Nov. 26, 2013, ECF No. 1330 (quoting Schouweiler v. Yancey

11

Co., 712 P.2d 786, 788 & n.2 (Nev. 1985)). While the previous motion for attorney’s fees under

12

section 18.010 was pending, Commonwealth filed the present motion for sanctions.

13

II.

14

DISCUSSION
Commonwealth asks for $5500 in attorney’s fees against Plaintiffs and their counsel

15

related to defending Plaintiffs’ latest motion for attorney’s fees. Attorney Hyman has responded

16

only to argue that the Motion is procedurally defective because it was served upon Nevada

17

counsel, Attorney Carson, and not also upon Attorney Hyman in California. Attorney Carson has

18

not timely responded. Although the motion was without legal support, the Court declines to

19

award sanctions.

20

CONCLUSION

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 1326) is DENIED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated this 15th day of of January, 2014.
Dated this 17th day January, 2014.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2