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)

Download PDF
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?