Austin et al v. Life Partners Inc., et al
Filing
83
ORDER Denying 78 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 2/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
ANGELA AUSTIN, et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
LIFE PARTNERS, INC.,
10
Defendant.
11
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-CV-01767-PMP-GWF
ORDER
12
Presently before the Court is Defendant Life Partners, Inc.’s Motion for Award of
13
Attorney’s Fees (Doc. #78), filed on July 9, 2013. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (Doc. #80)
14
on July 26, 2013. Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. #81) on August 1, 2013.
15
I. BACKGROUND
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case and the Court will not repeat
16
17
them here except where necessary.1 In May 2011, Defendant brought suit against Plaintiffs
18
in Texas state court for breach of contract and other related claims. In November 2011,
19
Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant in this Court for fraud and contract-based claims
20
arising out of the same facts as the Texas action. In October 2012, the Texas state court
21
entered judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiffs did not move for a new trial or file a
22
notice of appeal of the Texas state court’s judgment. Defendant then moved for summary
23
judgment in this Court on the basis of claim and issue preclusion. This Court granted
24
Defendant’s motion on the basis that Plaintiffs’ claims in this case are barred under claim
25
26
1
This Order provides a brief summary of the more detailed factual history given in the Court’s
Order (Doc. #75) granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
1
2
preclusion.
Defendant now moves for attorney’s fees, arguing it is the prevailing party and
3
therefore is entitled to $82,382.75. Defendant argues the choice of law clause in the
4
parties’ contracts requires application of Texas law. Specifically, Defendant argues it is
5
entitled to attorney’s fees under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 38.001(8),
6
which allows the recovery of attorney’s fees for contract claims. Although § 38.001(8) only
7
applies to contract claims, Defendant argues it is entitled to fees on all claims because the
8
parties’ relationship is entirely contractual and Plaintiffs’ Complaint included claims for
9
breach of contract. Defendant also seeks attorney’s fees under Nevada Revised Statutes
10
§ 18.010(2)(b) because Plaintiffs filed and continued the present action “in an effort to
11
harass [Defendant], to avoid the Texas court rulings and to increase the costs of litigation.”
12
(Def. Life Partner, Inc.’s Mot. for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. #78) [“Mot. for Fees”] at 6.)
13
Plaintiffs respond that Nevada law governs and that an award of attorney’s fees is
14
inappropriate because Plaintiffs’ claims were neither frivolous nor intended to harass.
15
Plaintiffs further contend that if Texas law governs, Defendant cannot recover attorney’s
16
fees because it did not recover damages in this case, and § 38.001(8) requires the recovery
17
of damages to be eligible for a fee award. Plaintiffs also argue Defendant’s requested fees
18
are unreasonable because Defendant’s counsel filed only two motions, did not engage in
19
discovery, was not precluded from working on other cases, and was not required to address
20
novel or difficult issues.
21
II. DISCUSSION
22
While federal law governs the procedure for requesting attorney’s fees, state law
23
governs the substantive issue of whether a party is entitled to attorney’s fees. Carnes v.
24
Zamani, 488 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). When sitting in diversity, the Court applies
25
the forum state’s law to determine whether a party is entitled to attorney’s fees. Id. Here,
26
the Court need not determine whether Nevada would apply its own law or Texas law
2
1
exclusively, or if Nevada would apply both, because Defendant is not entitled to attorney’s
2
fees under either standard.
3
A. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 38.001(8)
4
“[L]itigants in Texas are responsible for their own attorney’s fees and expenses in
5
litigation.” Ashford Partners, Ltd. v. ECO Res., Inc., 401 S.W.3d 35, 41 (Tex. 2012).
6
Generally, “attorney’s fees are not recoverable either in an action in tort or a suit upon a
7
contract unless provided by statute or by contract between the parties.” New Amsterdam
8
Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex. 1967). Texas allows a party to
9
recover “reasonable attorney’s fees from an individual or corporation, in addition to the
10
amount of a valid claim and costs, if the claim is for . . . an oral or written contract.” Tex.
11
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 38.001(8). To obtain fees under § 38.001(8), a litigant must:
12
“(1) prevail on a breach of contract claim, and (2) recover damages.” MBM Fin. Corp. v.
13
Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660, 666 (Tex. 2009).
14
The requirement that a litigant recover damages “is implied from the statute’s
15
language: for a fee recovery to be ‘in addition to the amount of a valid claim,’ the claimant
16
must recover some amount on that claim.” Id.; see also, Green Int’l, Inc. v. Solis, 951
17
S.W.2d 384, 390 (Tex. 1997) (holding the plaintiff could not recover attorney’s fees under
18
§ 38.001 even after the jury found the defendant breached the contract because the jury
19
awarded zero damages to the plaintiff for the breach). A claim under § 38.001(8) does not
20
include a defense to an adverse claim. Rather, to be entitled to fee recovery under
21
§ 38.001(8), the claim must be one which could be prosecuted “to a judgment for money or
22
value, even if [the] opponent had never filed [a] competing claim.” ITT Commercial Fin.
23
Corp. v. Riehn, 796 S.W.2d 248, 256 (Tex. App. 1990).
24
Defendant has not satisfied the statutory requirement to recover fees. Defendant
25
succeeded in obtaining a dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims, but it did not present a claim which
26
could be prosecuted apart from Plaintiffs’ claims in this case, and Defendant did not recover
3
1
damages in this case. Defendant’s recovery of damages in the Texas action may entitle it to
2
fees in that action, but the fact that this Court gives full faith and credit to the judgment in
3
Texas state court does not entitle Defendant to a fee award in this case. Had Defendant
4
wished to recover attorney’s fees upon the successful defense of a lawsuit without
5
recovering damages, it could have included a contractual clause allowing for such a
6
recovery. Intercontinental Grp. P’ship v. KB Home Lone Star L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650, 653
7
(Tex. 2009) (stating parties can “contract for a fee-recovery standard either looser or stricter
8
than Chapter 38’s”). Therefore, the Court will deny Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees
9
under Texas law.
10
B. Nevada Revised Statutes § 18.010(2)(b)
11
Nevada permits an award of attorney’s fees where a claim or defense “was
12
brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party.” Nev.
13
Rev. Stat. § 18.010(2)(b). A claim or defense “is frivolous or groundless if there is no
14
credible evidence to support it.” Rodriguez v. Primadonna Co., 216 P.3d 793, 800 (Nev.
15
2009). A district court has discretion to award attorney’s fees, but any award must be based
16
on evidence supporting “a finding that the claim or defense was unreasonable or brought to
17
harass.” Bower v. Harrah’s Laughlin, Inc., 215 P.3d 709, 726 (Nev. 2009).
18
The Court finds Plaintiffs did not bring their claims in this Court to harass
19
Defendant. This case and the case in Texas state court were brought to resolve the parties’
20
disputes regarding their contractual obligations and related tort claims. Defendant has not
21
presented any evidence to support a finding that any of Plaintiffs’ claims were brought to
22
harass Defendant.
23
The Court also finds Plaintiffs had reasonable grounds to bring this case in
24
Nevada despite the pending action in Texas. Sixty-eight of the eighty-three Plaintiffs were
25
Nevada residents, the contracts were marketed in Nevada, and Plaintiffs’ alleged harms
26
were felt in Nevada. (Compl. (Doc. #1) at 3-9; Order on Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. #60)
4
1
at 4.) Plaintiffs were not prohibited from bringing suit in this Court because Defendant first
2
filed suit in Texas state court. R.R. Street & Co. v. Transp. Ins. Co., 656 F.3d 966, 975 (9th
3
Cir. 2011) (emphasis omitted). Plaintiffs’ decision to bring a parallel action therefore was
4
not groundless. The Court also finds Plaintiffs did not frivolously maintain this suit.
5
Plaintiffs’ Complaint survived a motion to dismiss in this action. (Order on Def.’s Mot. to
6
Dismiss (Doc. #60).) Judgment was entered against Plaintiffs in Texas state court because
7
Plaintiffs’ counsel was forced to withdraw and Plaintiffs failed to respond to a motion for
8
summary judgment. (Order on Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. #75) at 4.) Defendant then
9
moved for summary judgment in this Court immediately after the Texas state court’s
10
judgment, resulting in the conclusion of this case on claim preclusion. The Court therefore
11
declines, in its discretion, to award Defendant attorney’s fees sought under § 18.010(2)(b).
12
Because the Court will deny Defendant’s fee request, the Court need not address the
13
reasonableness of the requested fees.
14
III. CONCLUSION
15
16
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Life Partners, Inc.’s Motion for
Award of Attorney’s Fees (Doc. #78) is hereby DENIED.
17
18
19
20
DATED: February 24, 2014
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
5
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?