Liguori et al v. Hansen et al

Filing 522

ORDER granting 516 Motion for Attorney's Fees. Defendant is further ordered to make the payment to Plaintiffs by May 28, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 4/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

LENARD E. SCHWARTZER, CHAPTER 7
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

Case No. 2:11-cv-00492-GWF

ORDER

v.
BERT HANSEN, et al.,

11
Defendants.

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 516),

14

filed March 20, 2018. Defendant filed his Opposition (ECF No. 519) on April 5, 2018. To date,

15

Plaintiffs have not filed a reply in response to the opposition and the time for the reply has now

16

expired.

17
18

BACKGROUND
This matter arises from a breach of contract dispute pertaining to a licensing agreement

19

between the parties. Complaint (ECF No. 1). Judgment was entered against Defendants on

20

August 11, 2016. ECF No. 376. In an effort to collect on this judgment, Plaintiffs filed their

21

second motion for leave of court to serve additional interrogatories. ECF No. 460. The Court

22

granted Plaintiffs leave to serve additional interrogatories. ECF No. 472. Upon receipt and

23

review, Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant’s responses relating to his income and assets were

24

insufficient. ECF No. 508 at 3. Plaintiffs’ counsel advised Defendant’s counsel of the alleged

25

deficiencies and Defendant agreed to supplement his original responses. Id. However, Plaintiffs

26

asserted that Defendant’s supplemental responses were similarly insufficient and evasive. Id.

27

Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. Motion

28

(ECF No. 508). The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel and further ordered counsel for
1

1

Plaintiffs to file a memorandum regarding attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of filing

2

the motion to compel. Id.

3
4

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

5

to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community,” considering the fees charged by

6

“lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S.

7

886, 895-96 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541 (1984). Courts typically use a two-step process when

8

determining fee awards. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). First,

9

the Court must calculate the lodestar amount “by taking the number of hours reasonably

10

expended on the litigation and multiplying it by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. Furthermore,

11

other factors should be taken into consideration such as special skill, experience of counsel, and

12

the results obtained. Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 364 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1996). “The

13

party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates

14

claimed . . . [w]here the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the

15

award accordingly.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Second, the Court “may

16

adjust the lodestar, [only on rare and exceptional occasions], upward or downward using a

17

multiplier based on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation of the lodestar.” Van Gerwen

18

v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000).

19

Plaintiffs request reimbursement of attorney’s fees and costs at the following hourly

20

rates: $400 an hour for the time of Todd Moody, Esq., based on Mr. Moody’s twenty-four (24)

21

years of litigation experience and position as a partner at the law firm of Hutchinson & Steffen;

22

$290 an hour for the time of Traci Cassity, Esq., based on Mrs. Cassity’s thirteen (13) years of

23

litigation experience, as an associate attorney. ECF No. 516 at 2.

24

After reviewing Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Fees and the declaration of Todd L. Moody,

25

Esq., the Court finds that Plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence that $400 and $290 an hour

26

in the Las Vegas legal market is reasonable for attorneys of such significant experience as Mr.

27

Todd and Mrs. Cassity. Plaintiff requests reimbursement for 25.4 hours of attorney work based

28

on time spent reviewing post-judgment interrogatories, preparing Plaintiffs’ motion to compel,
2

1

drafting their reply in support of motion to the compel and preparation for and presentation of

2

argument at hearing on motion to compel. ECF. No. 516 at 3. The records submitted by

3

Plaintiffs confirm that significant time was spent drafting the motion and appearing at the

4

hearing. Id. Based on the attorney hours billed, Plaintiffs request an award of fees in the amount

5

of $8,343.00. Id. Based on its own review of the pleadings, the affidavit of Mr. Moody and the

6

exhibits, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s calculation of 25.4 hours of attorney labor reasonable.

7

Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s full request. Accordingly,

8
9
10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 516) is
granted. Defendant is further ordered to make the payment to Plaintiffs by May 28, 2018.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2018.

11
12
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3