Steelman Partners LLP v. Sanya Gaosheng Investment Company Ltd.

Filing 105

ORDER that 102 Motion for Costs and for Reasonable Attorney's Fees is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff the total sum of $19,423.87. Defendant is ordered to make the payment to Plaintiff by March 11, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 2/11/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

STEELMAN PARTNERS, a Nevada Limited
liability partnership,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SANYA GAOSHENG INVESTMENT
)
COMPANY LTD, a Hong Kong corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:09-cv-01016-GMN-GWF
ORDER

14
15

This matter if before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and for Reasonable

16

Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. #102), filed on January 8, 2016. Defendant filed its Opposition (Dkt. #103)

17

on January 25, 2016 and Plaintiff filed its Reply (Dkt. #104) on February 4, 2016.

18
19

BACKGROUND
This case arises from a breach of contract dispute where Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

20

failed to pay for its copyrighted scheme design architecture that Plaintiff created for Defendant’s

21

Haitang Bay 5-Star Resort Hotel Project. See Dkt. #1. On November 28, 2011, the District Court

22

entered default judgment in this matter on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract and awarded

23

Plaintiff $3,549,854 in damages. Dkt. #60. Thereafter, Plaintiff began its efforts to enforce the

24

judgment against Defendant. Plaintiff served a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice on

25

Defendant, which was scheduled to occur on April 24, 2015. However, Defendant failed to appear

26

at the deposition or otherwise respond to that notice. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion to

27

Compel and For Sanctions (Dkt. #80), which was granted on October 2, 2015. Dkt. #84.

28

Thereafter, Plaintiff once again scheduled a deposition of Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness to

1

occur in Las Vegas on November 4, 2015. Once again, Defendant failed to appear for the

2

deposition. Two days prior to the scheduled deposition, Defendant filed a Motion for Protective

3

Order (Dkt. #87), wherein Defendant sought to prohibit the deposition of its Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

4

However, on December 22, 2015, the Court denied Defendant’s motion. See Dkt. #100. During

5

this time, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. #92) for Defendant’s refusal to appear at the

6

November 4, 2015 deposition. On December 24, 2015, the Court awarded Plaintiff its reasonable

7

costs and attorney’s fees incurred in connection to the re-noticed deposition on November 4, 2015.

8

Dkt. #101. The Court also indicated that it may stay or vacate the award if Defendant appeared for a

9

re-noticed Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and properly responded to the areas of inquiry.1 Id. Plaintiff

10

now seeks an award of $36,304.87, which encompasses the hours expended on the following four

11

tasks: (1) Preparing for and attending the November 4, 2015 deposition; (2) Responding to

12

Defendant’s untimely Motion for Protective Order; (3) Preparing the Motion for Sanctions and

13

Reply; and (4) Preparing for and attending the December 22, 2015 hearing.

14

DISCUSSION

15

The Supreme Court has held that reasonable attorney fees must “be calculated according to

16

the prevailing market rates in the relevant community,” considering the fees charged by “lawyers of

17

reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 n.

18

11, 104 S.Ct. 1541 (1984). Courts typically use a two-step process when determining fee awards.

19

Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). First, the Court must calculate the

20

lodestar amount “by taking the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and

21

multiplying it by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. Furthermore, other factors should be taken into

22

consideration such as special skill, experience of counsel, and the results obtained. Morales v. City

23

of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 364 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1996). “The party seeking an award of fees should

24

submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed . . . [w]here the documentation of

25

hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Hensley v. Eckerhart,

26
27
1

28

Plaintiff represents that to date, Defendant has failed to provide its availability for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
See Dkt. #104, at n.1.

2

1

461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Second, the Court “may adjust the lodestar, [only on rare and

2

exceptional occasions], upward or downward using a multiplier based on factors not subsumed in

3

the initial calculation of the lodestar.” Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041,

4

1045 (9th Cir. 2000).

5

Plaintiff requests a total of $36,304.87 in attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing

6

the re-noticed deposition on November 4, 2015. Plaintiff itemized their requested fees and costs as

7

follows: (1) $20,920.00 in fees related to the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and

8

associated Reply, (2) $8,701.00 in fees related to responding to Defendant’s Motion for Protective

9

Order, (3) $2,564.68 in fees and costs related to the November 4, 2015 deposition, and (4)

10

$4,119.19 in fees and costs related to the December 22, 2015 hearing adjudicating the Motion for

11

Sanctions and Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiff requests reimbursement of attorneys’ fees at an

12

hourly rate of $300 for James E. Dallner, Esq. and $235 for Michael T. Figge, Esq. After reviewing

13

Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and the declaration of James

14

Dallner, Esq., the Court finds that Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence that the hourly rates of

15

$300.00 and $235.00 are reasonable.

16

Plaintiff requests reimbursement for 81.65 hours of attorney work based on time spent in

17

preparing Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Dkt. #92) and corresponding Reply (Dkt. #99).

18

Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that these hours are reasonable given the complexity of the issues

19

involved, specifically, the possibility of findings of fact as sanctions allowable withing Federal Rule

20

of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2). See Dkt. #102. Defendant asserts that the amount of time spent on

21

drafting these briefs is implausible and unreasonable because the issues were not particularly unique

22

or complex. See Dkt. #103. The records submitted by Plaintiff confirm that significant time was

23

spent drafting the motion and reply. Dkt. #102-2. The Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s counsel

24

would have spent a reasonable amount of time on these matters, but based on its review of the

25

motion for attorneys’ fees and the affidavit of Mr. Dallner, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

26

calculation of 81.65 hours of attorney labor is excessive. The Court finds that the work involved in

27

preparing the Motion for Sanctions and the associated Reply should reasonably take no more than

28

40 hours of attorney labor. As a result, the Court will award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees
3

1

associated with bringing the Motion for Sanctions in the amount of $6,580.00 (28hrs x $235.00) and

2

$3,600.00 (12hrs x $300.00) for a total of $10,180.00.

3

Plaintiff also requests reimbursement for 34.55 hours of attorney work based on time spent

4

in preparing Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #91). Plaintiff

5

asserts that these hours are reasonable because Defendant filed its Motion for Protective Order (Dkt.

6

#87) at the “eleventh hour” which forced Plaintiff “to respond in the midst of preparation for the

7

November 4th deposition.” Dkt. #102, pg. 6, ln. 19–20. Defendant argues that the hours expended

8

on this brief were unreasonable. Dkt. #103. Again, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s counsel

9

would have spent a reasonable amount of time on this matter, but based on its review of the motion

10

for attorneys’ fees and the affidavit of Mr. Dallner, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s calculation of

11

34.55 hours of attorney labor is excessive. The Court finds that the work involved in responding to

12

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order should reasonably take 20 hours of attorney labor. As a

13

result, the Court will award Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees associated with bringing the

14

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order in the amount of $3,760.00 (16hrs x $235)

15

and $1,200.00 (4hrs x $300) for a total of $4,960.00.

16

Plaintiff additionally requests reimbursement for 5.0 hours of attorney work based on time

17

spent preparing for the November 4, 2015 deposition and 11.0 hours of attorney work based on time

18

spent preparing for and attending the December 22, 2015 hearing adjudicating the Motion for

19

Protective Order and Motion for Sanctions.2 The Court finds that Plaintiff has provided sufficient

20

evidence to justify the time spent preparing for the November 2, 2015 deposition. However, the

21

Court finds that the time spent preparing for the December 22, 2015 hearing should reasonably take

22

no more than 3 hours of attorney labor. As such, the Court will award fees in the amount of

23

$1,500.00 (5hrs x $300.00) and $900.00 (3hrs x $300.00) for a total of $2,400.00.

24
25

Lastly, Plaintiff requests reimbursement of costs in the amount of $1,883.87 associated with
the November 4, 2015 deposition and December 22, 2015 hearing. These costs included airfare,

26
27
28

2

The Court notes that the chart contained in Mr. Dallner’s affidavit misstates the amount of time spent preparing for
the November 4, 2015 deposition and the December 22, 2015 hearing, but is correct on the total amount billed for those
matters as detailed in the billing records attached at Exhibit 2.

4

1

hotel, car rental, meals, and a court reporter for the deposition. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s

2

request is reasonable and will therefore award Plaintiff a total of $1,883.87 in costs.

3

Thus, based on the reasonable hourly rates discussed above, the Court will award attorneys’

4

fees in the amount of $17,540.00 and costs in the amount of $1,883.87 for a total of $19,423.87.

5

The relevant factors are subsumed in this calculation of the reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and

6

there are no other exception circumstances which warrant enhancement or reduction of the fees.

7

Accordingly,

8
9
10
11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs and for Reasonable
Attorneys’ Fees (Dkt. #102) is granted. Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff the total sum of
$19,423.87. Defendant is ordered to make the payment to Plaintiff by March 11, 2016.
DATED this 11th day of February, 2016.

12
13
14

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5