Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Sossaman & Guadalupe Plaza, LLC et al

Filing 162

ORDER granting ECF No. 148 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk enter an award of attorney's fees in favor of Branch Banking and Trust Company and against Defendants Sossaman & Guadalu pe Plaza, LLC; Yoel Iny, individually, and as trustee of the Y&T Iny Family Trust; Noam Schwartz and as trustee of the Noam Schwartz Trust; and D.M.S.I., L.L.C. in the amount of $208,848.22. Clerk to also enter an award of non-taxable costs in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the amount of $4,475.10. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 02/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

Case No. 2:12-cv-1775-LRH-PAL

v.

ORDER

SOSSAMAN & GUADALUPE PLAZA,
LLC; et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Before the court is plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust Company’s (“Branch Banking”)

17
18

motion for attorney’s fees. ECF No. 148. Defendants Sossaman & Guadalupe Plaza, LLC; Yoel

19

Iny, individually, and as trustee of the Y&T Iny Family Trust dated June 8, 1994; Noam

20

Schwartz, individually, and as trustee of the Noam Schwartz Trust dated August 19, 1999; and

21

D.M.S.I., L.L.C. (collectively “defendants”) filed an opposition (ECF No. 153) to which Branch

22

Banking replied (ECF No. 155).

23

I.

Facts and Procedural Background

24

This is a breach of contract action arising from a promissory note and personal guarantee.

25

On July 28, 2006, defendant Sossaman & Guadalupe, LLC (“Sossaman”) executed a promissory

26

note secured by deed of trust to non-party Colonial Bank, N.A. (“Colonial Bank”) for a loan in

27

the amount of $3,826,000.00. See ECF No. 69, Ex. 1A. The note was secured by a deed of trust

28

encumbering certain real property in Maricopa County, Arizona. ECF No. 69, Ex. 1B;
1

1

ECF No. 99, Ex. 2. The promissory note was also subject to a guarantee in which defendants

2

guaranteed the payment of all indebtedness under the loan. Id.

3

On August 14, 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was named as

4

receiver for Colonial Bank. ECF No. 69, Ex. 1F; ECF No. 99, Ex. 7. On September 7, 2011, the

5

FDIC assigned all rights, title, and interest in the promissory note and guarantee to Branch

6

Banking. Id.

7

Defendant Sossaman failed to pay the outstanding principal balance of the loan by the

8

required due date. On December 19, 2011, Branch Banking commenced a judicial foreclosure

9

action in the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa, Arizona. ECF No. 99, Ex. 8. On April

10

23, 2012, a judicial foreclosure of the property was entered and the property was sold at public

11

auction for $816,000.00 in partial satisfaction of the loan. ECF No. 69, Ex. 1H & 1I;

12

ECF No. 100, Ex. 12 & 13.

13

On October 10, 2012, after the property was sold at auction, Branch Banking filed the

14

underlying complaint for deficiency, breach of guarantee, and breach of the covenant of good

15

faith and fair dealing. ECF No. 1. On September 15, 2014, the court granted Branch Banking’s

16

motion for summary judgment and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

17

ECF No. 119. The court then directed the parties to file briefs pursuant to NRS § 40.457(1) for a

18

deficiency hearing. Id. On May 13, 2016, the parties stipulated that the fair market value of the

19

property on June 21, 2012, was $450,000.00. ECF No. 145. Subsequently, on July 11, 2016, the

20

court entered an order awarding Branch Banking a deficiency judgment against defendants in the

21

amount of $509,495.93. ECF No. 146; ECF No. 147. Thereafter, Branch Banking filed the

22

present motion for attorney’s fees. ECF No. 148.

23

II.

Discussion
In its motion, Branch Banking seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of

24
25

$208,848.22 and non-taxable costs in the amount of $4,475.10. ECF No. 148. The court shall

26

address both requests below.

27

///

28

///
2

1

A. Attorney’s Fees

2

This is diversity action between Branch Banking, a North Carolina banking corporation,

3

and defendants. Because this action is founded on diversity jurisdiction, Nevada state law applies

4

to Branch Banking’s request for fees. Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 299 F.3d 877,

5

883 (9th Cir. 2000); see also, In re: USA Commer. Mortg. Co., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1178 (D.

6

Nev. 2011) (holding that Nevada law applies to a determination of whether to award fees on

7

claims based on Nevada law). Under Nevada law, a court may award attorney’s fees when such

8

fees are authorized pursuant to a state statute, rule, or a contract between the parties. See Albios

9

v. Horizon Communities, Inc., 132 P.3d 1022, 1027-28 (Nev. 2006); Horgan v. Felton, 170 P.3d

10
11

982, 986 (Nev. 2007).
In this action Branch Banking contends that it is entitled to seek an award of fees because

12

both the promissory note and personal guarantee authorizes such an award. See ECF No. 148.

13

The court agrees. Here, the parties entered into a promissory note which specifically provides for

14

an award of fees. See ECF No. 69, Ex. 1A at 3 (“In the event that suit be brought hereon, . . .

15

Borrower promises to pay all such expense and reasonable attorneys’ fees[.]”). Similarly, the

16

guarantee signed by the individual defendants also provides for an award of attorney’s fees for

17

any action to collect on the underlying indebtedness. See ECF No. 69, Ex. 1C at 5 (“Guarantor

18

shall also pay Lender’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and all costs and other expenses which Lender

19

expends or incurs in collecting or comprising any such indebtedness[.]”). Therefore, the court

20

finds that Branch Banking is entitled to seek an award of attorney’s fees in this action.

21

Once a party has established its entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees the court must

22

then determine the reasonableness of such an award. In re: USA Commer. Mortg. Co., 802 F.

23

Supp. 2d at 1178. In Nevada, when determining whether to award attorney’s fees, the court

24

analyses four factors: (1) the reputation and skill of counsel; (2) the nature and character of the

25

litigation; (3) the nature and extent of the work performed by counsel; and (4) the results

26

obtained in the litigation. See Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (Nev. 1969).

27

The court has reviewed Branch Banking’s request for attorney’s fees and finds that the requested

28

fees are reasonable. First, Branch Banking’s counsel, Holland & Hart LLP, is a national AV3

1

rated law firm with extensive experience in commercial litigation which charges rates

2

commensurate with the fees charged in this district. Second, this litigation presented several

3

novel defenses in response to new Nevada statutes that had recently gone into effect when the

4

action was filed. Thus, the time spent on this action was reasonable for the particular novel

5

defenses raised by defendants and for the motions filed by the parties including four (4) separate

6

motions for summary judgment filed by defendants. Third, counsels’ skill and experience was

7

integral to Branch Banking’s success in this action as counsel presented the case to the court in a

8

manner that helpfully explained the complex matters of law presented to the court for the first

9

time. Further, the skill of counsel is highlighted by Branch Banking’s success in this action

10

which resulted in a deficiency judgment of over $500,000.00. Finally, the court notes that the

11

present motion for attorney’s fees complies with LR 54-16 and contains a “reasonable

12

itemization and description of the work performed.” See ECF No. 148, Ex. 1.

13

In opposition, defendants contend that the request for attorney’s fees should be denied, or

14

at least reduced, because of improper billing entries. See, e.g., Huhmann v. FedEx Corp., 2015

15

WL 6127198, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015) (30% reduction for improper billing entries);

16

eMove, Inc. v. SMD Software, Inc., 2012 WL 4856276, at *7 (D. Ariz. Oct. 11, 2012) (20%

17

reduction for improper billing entries); Gunderson v. Mauna Kea Prop., Inc., 2011 WL 9754085,

18

at *10 (D. Haw. May 9, 2011) (20% reduction for improper billing entries). In particular,

19

defendants argue that counsels’ proffered billing records contain numerous entries that are either

20

duplicative, excessive, vague, or otherwise constitute improper block billing and should be

21

excluded. Additionally, defendants request the court reduce any fee award by the amount of time

22

billed as it related to Branch Banking opposing defendants’ successful motions to compel.

23

The court has reviewed the billing records and finds that counsel has proffered sufficient

24

evidence for the court to find that the time billed was reasonable for this litigation. The few

25

examples provided by defendant are not a substantial or excessive amount of the billing records

26

and are not significant enough to warrant either a general reduction in fees or exclusion of the

27

specific entries identified by defendant. Although counsels’ billing records do include a few

28

inconsistencies like vague entries and block billing, the court does not find the billing records as
4

1

nearly replete with errors as defendants contend, and the few identified entries are not the kind of

2

entries which consciously violate regular billing practices and guidelines.
As to defendants’ objection to the fees incurred in responding to defendants’ motions to

3
4

compel, the court has reviewed defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 35, 38) and the accompanying

5

order from the magistrate judge (ECF No. 62) and finds that defendants’ contention that Branch

6

Banking had engaged in significant discovery violations sufficient to exclude the time spent on

7

these motions from any fees award is without merit. The limited discovery that was ordered by

8

the magistrate judge in this action – only a few supplemental responses to interrogatories – does

9

not establish that Branch Banking’s counsel engaged in violation of the discovery rules or that

10

that time spent on responding to defendants’ motions, which were ultimately only granted in-

11

part, should be excluded from the overall award for fees. Therefore, the court shall grant the

12

motion and award Branch Banking $208,848.22 in attorney’s fees.

13

B. Costs

14

As part of its motion for attorney’s fees, Branch Banking seeks recovery of $4,475.10 in

15

non-taxable costs. See ECF No. 148. In this action, the parties entered into a promissory note and

16

guarantee which specifically provides for an award of all costs related to collecting on the

17

underlying indebtedness. See ECF No. 69, Ex. 1A at 3 (“In the event that suit be brought hereon,

18

. . . Borrower promises to pay all such expense and reasonable attorneys’ fees[.]”); ECF No. 69,

19

Ex. 1C at 5 (“Guarantor shall also pay Lender’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and all costs and other

20

expenses which Lender expends or incurs in collecting or comprising any such indebtedness[.]”).

21

The court has reviewed Branch Banking’s request for non-taxable costs and finds that they are

22

both recoverable and reasonable for this litigation. Therefore, the court shall award Branch

23

Banking $4,475.10 in non-taxable costs.

24
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs

25
26

(ECF No. 148) is GRANTED.

27

///

28

///
5

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court shall enter an award of attorney’s

2

fees in favor of plaintiff Branch Banking and Trust Company and against defendants Sossaman

3

& Guadalupe Plaza, LLC; Yoel Iny, individually, and as trustee of the Y&T Iny Family Trust

4

dated June 8, 1994; Noam Schwartz, individually, and as trustee of the Noam Schwartz Trust

5

dated August 19, 1999; and D.M.S.I., L.L.C. in the amount of $208,848.22. The clerk of court

6

shall also enter an award of non-taxable costs in favor of plaintiff and against defendants in the

7

amount of $4,475.10.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED this 10th day of February, 2017.

10
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6