Miller v. Henry et al
Filing
48
ORDER that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants Brian Henry and Hatched Development, Inc. and against Plaintiff Craig Miller in the amount of $55,129.90 in attorneys fees. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 11/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
CRAIG M. MILLER,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
14
BRIAN HENRY and HATCHED
DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Defendants.
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-CV-01724-PMP-PAL
ORDER
15
16
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Supplemental Declaration in Support of
17
Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. #45), filed on October 14, 2013. Plaintiff filed an
18
Opposition (Doc. #46) on October 23, 2013. Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. #47) on
19
October 30, 2013.
20
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, and the Court will not repeat
21
them here except where necessary. Defendants previously moved for attorney’s fees under
22
Nevada Revised Statutes § 18.010(2)(b), arguing Plaintiff’s claims were groundless and
23
brought or maintained to harass Defendants. Defendants requested approximately
24
$225,000.00 in attorney’s fees. The Court partially granted the prior motion and directed
25
Defendants to file a supplemental fee affidavit setting forth “only those fees incurred in
26
relation to the fraud and conspiracy claims.” (Order (Doc. #44) at 5.)
1
Defendants have filed a supplemental fee memorandum, indicating that because
2
Plaintiff’s contract, equitable, and fraud and conspiracy claims arose out of the same factual
3
allegations, apportioning the fees incurred in relation to the fraud and conspiracy claims is
4
challenging. Defendants viewed the fraud and conspiracy claims as one third of the case,
5
and thus Defendants suggest the Court award one third of the fees incurred, if the Court is
6
inclined to apportion. Plaintiff responds that Defendants have failed to follow the Court’s
7
directive of identifying those fees incurred only in relation to the fraud and conspiracy
8
claims. Plaintiff suggests the Court award fees for only a few identified time entries,
9
amounting to approximately $4,500 in fees.
10
The Court will not apportion the fees as Plaintiff suggests, as Plaintiff’s proposed
11
apportionment fails to account for the intertwined factual nature of the various claims and
12
the difficulty that engenders for parsing out fees incurred in relation to the fraud and
13
conspiracy claims. On the other hand, although Defendants viewed the case in thirds, the
14
contract claims, along with the related quasi-contract unjust enrichment and declaratory
15
relief claims, predominated over the other claims. The Court therefore does not find a one
16
third apportionment appropriate. Instead, the Court concludes a twenty percent
17
apportionment accurately captures the time devoted to the fraud and conspiracy claims.
18
These claims required some discovery and briefing on the elements of fraud and conspiracy
19
beyond the common factual scenario with the contract claims, but these claims constituted a
20
lesser fraction of the resources expended by the parties when compared to the contract
21
claims. Moreover, Defendants’ request for a one third apportionment for the fraud and
22
conspiracy claims is belied by the fact that these claims were groundless, and thus required
23
less briefing to defend against. The Court therefore will award Defendants a total of
24
$55,129.90, reflecting twenty percent of $214,834.50 ($42,966.90) plus $6,520.00 incurred
25
in preparing the supplemental fee affidavit, plus $5,640.00 incurred in preparing the
26
supplemental reply.
2
1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment is hereby entered in favor of
2
Defendants Brian Henry and Hatched Development, Inc. and against Plaintiff Craig Miller
3
in the amount of $55,129.90 in attorney’s fees.
4
5
6
7
DATED: November 25, 2013
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?