BGC Partners, Inc. et al v. Avison Young (Canada), Inc. et al

Filing 622

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that attorney's fees are granted in favor of Defendants to be paid by Plaintiffs in the amount of $23,540.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall pay this amount to Defendants, through counsel, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order unless an objection is filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 3/21/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY Document 622 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 4

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

NEWMARK GROUP, INC., G&E
ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC and BGC
REAL ESTATE OF NEVADA, LLC

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Case No. 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
AVISON YOUNG (CANADA) INC.;
AVISON YOUNG (USA) INC.; AVISON
YOUNG-NEVADA, LLC, MARK ROSE,
THE NEVADA COMMERCIAL GROUP,
JOHN PINJUV, and JOSEPH KUPIEC; DOES
1 through 5; and ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES
6 through 10,
Defendants.

13
14

The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has largely adopted the hybrid

15

lodestar/multiplier approach, used by the Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424

16

(1983), as the proper method for determining the amount of attorney’s fees due in most actions. The

17

lodestar/multiplier approach has two parts. First, the court determines the lodestar amount by

18

multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a motion by a reasonable hourly rate.

19

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. To get to this calculation, the party seeking an award of fees must submit

20

evidence supporting the hours worked and the rates claimed. Id. The district court will then,

21

generally, exclude from the lodestar amount hours that are not reasonably expended because they

22

are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. at 434. Second, after calculating the total

23

amount requested, the court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a “multiplier” based

24

on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898–901 (1984)

25

(reversing upward multiplier based on factors subsumed in the lodestar determination); Hensley, 461

26

U.S. at 434 n.9 (noting that courts may look at “results obtained” and other factors but should

27

consider that many of these factors are subsumed in the lodestar calculation).

28
1

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY Document 622 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 4

1

I.

Discussion

2

A.

The Hourly Rate Charged.

3

Here, the Court finds that a rate of $500 per hour for Mr. Kritzer and Mr. Goldkind is

4

reasonable. Each of these attorneys is a partner in Steptoe & Johnson handling commercial

5

litigation with thirteen and eighteen years of experience respectively. The litigation involving

6

Avison Young is complex, has, in the past, involved novel areas of law, which has also been

7

considerable. This multi-party case requires more than what might be called routine knowledge

8

of the law. The hourly rate of $500 is not out of line with the upper range of prevailing rates in

9

the District of Nevada. Perrong v. Sperian Energy Corp., Case No. 2:19-cv-00115-RFB-EJY,

10

2020 WL 2996063, at *3 (D. Nev. June 4, 2020); Boca Park Marketplace Syndications Grp., LLC

11

v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01197-RFB-BNW, 2020 WL 2892586, at *3 (D.

12

Nev. May 31, 2020); Telasia, Inc. v. EZ Supply, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00399-MMD-GWF, 2015

13

WL 2095874, at *3 (D. Nev. May 5, 2015). The requested rate for Ms. Lucas and Mr. Sanderson

14

of $350 per hour is also appropriate given their years of experience as commercial litigators for

15

Steptoe. The rate requested for paralegal, Ms. Iwona Kelsh, at $125 per hour, is reasonable given

16

her experience and the nature of the case.

17

B.

18

As stated in previous orders by this Court, time spent by attorneys within the same firm

19

communicating regarding motion practice is not time for which an opposing party will be required

20

to pay. The reductions below represents not only internal communication, but vague entries, and

21

time representing excessiveness or redundancy.

22

Review of the Hours Billed.

The Court is reducing the following time billed:

23

DATE

NAME

24

8/16/2022
8/158/17/2022

J. Sanderson
J. Goldkind

25

REDUCED
TIME
.2
2.5

26
27
28
2

DESCRIPTION/REASON
FOR
DELETION
Internal Communication
Excessive time reviewing notes, deposition
transcript to identify issues for motion for
sanctions.

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY Document 622 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 4

1

8/25/2022

J. Goldkind

1.0

Reviewing notes from N. Kritzer regarding
sanctions motion, corresponding with M.
Lucas and J. Sanderson regarding additional
research, coordinating revision to brief.
Excessive time on research, preparation,
and drafting Motion to Compel.
Excessive time as Lucas revised Motion
after partner Goldkind drafted same and
oversaw preparation of exhibits.
Vague entry regarding work on motion for
sanctions.

8/2226/2022
08/26/22

J. Goldkind

4.0

M. Lucas

2.1

8/29/2022

N. Kritzer

.5

8/29/2022

J. Goldkind

1.5

Internal correspondence, review and
revisions to motion for sanctions as
excessive and redundant.

8/30/2022

J. Goldkind

.2

Reduced
time
for
review
of
communications regarding service of brief.

8/2930/2022

I. Kelsch

2.0

Excessive time compiling and indexing
exhibits.

9/21/2022

M. Lucas

1.0

Internal communications, preparation of
internal memorandum.

9/2022/2022

N. Kritzer
J. Goldkind
M. Lucas

1.5

9/22/2022
9/23/2022
9/23/22

M. Lucas
M. Lucas
N. Kritzer

.2
.1
1.5

Using a combined hourly rate of $450,
collective time N. Kritzer, J. Goldkind, and
M. Lucas spent reviewing Opposition to
Motion for Sanctions.
Internal communication.
Internal communication.
Excessive time for reviewing and analyzing
Steptoe’s already filed motion for sanctions.

9/26/2022
9/2730/2022

M. Lucas
N. Kritzer

.3
4.0

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Internal communication.
Excessive time preparing reply brief.

20
21

The time billed by Mr. Goldkind reduced by the Court totals 9.2 hours. The time billed by Mr.

22

Kritzer reduced by the Court totals 6.0 hours. The time billed by Ms. Lucas reduced by the Court

23

is 3.7 hours. The time billed by Mr. Sanderson reduced by the Court is .2 hours. The time billed by

24

Ms. Kelsch reduced by the Court is 2.0. Collective time billed by Mr. Kritzer, Mr. Goldkind and

25

Ms. Lucas reduced by the Court is 1.5 hours. The Court applies the average of the hourly rate (not

26

weighted) to this time is $450 per hour.

27

$500 per hour x 15.2 hours for Messrs. Goldkind and Kritzer = $7,600.00

28

$350 per hour x 3.7 hours for Ms. Lucas = $1,295.00
3

Case 2:15-cv-00531-RFB-EJY Document 622 Filed 03/21/23 Page 4 of 4

1

$350 per hour x .2 hours for Mr. Sanderson = $70.00

2

$125 per hour x 2.0 hours for Ms. Kelsch = $250.00

3

$450 per hour x 1.50 hours for Mr. Goldkind, Mr. Kritzer, and Ms. Lucas = $675.00.

4

No costs are requested. The total amount disallowed by the Court is $9,890.00. The fees requested

5

are reduced to $23,540.00.

6

II.

7
8

Order
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney’s fees are granted in favor of

Defendants to be paid by Plaintiffs in the amount of $23,540.00.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall pay this amount to Defendants, through

10

counsel, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order unless an objection is filed, which will

11

automatically stay this Order until such time as the objection is ruled upon.

12

Dated this 21st day of March, 2023.

13
14
15

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4