Sonoro Invest S.A. v. Miller et al

Filing 176

ORDERED that the request for attorneys' fees contained in the Emergency Motion to Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 162 ) and the Countermotion for Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 173 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 2/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:15-cv-2286-JAD-CWH 4 Sonoro Invest S.A., a Panamanian corporation, Plaintiff 5 Order Denying Award of Attorneys’ Fees 6 v. 7 Robert Miller, et al., [ECF No. 162, 173] Defendants 8 9 When the settlement payment was delayed in this case, the plaintiff moved to enforce the 10 11 settlement agreement and asked for an award of attorney’s fees for having to file the enforcement 1 12 motion. The settlement quickly got back on track, so the court vacated the emergency hearing 13 that it had scheduled on the motion, but the plaintiff did not withdraw the motion because it 14 maintained its request for a fee award. The defendants oppose that request and countermove for 2 15 their own award of fees. Local Rule 54-14 governs motions for attorneys’ fees and contains extensive, detailed 16 17 requirements. It states that a party moving for attorneys’ fees “must” include: “A reasonable 18 itemization and description of the work performed,” along with “A brief summary of: (A) The 19 results obtained and the amount involved; (B) The time and labor required; (C) The novelty and 20 difficulty of the questions involved; (D) The skill requisite to perform the legal service 3 21 properly . . . [and] (G) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.” “Each motion must be 22 accompanied by an affidavit from the attorney responsible for the billings in the case 23 authenticating the information contained in the motion and confirming that the bill was reviewed 24 25 1 ECF No. 162. 2 ECF No. 173 (countermotion); ECF Nos. 169, 170, 171 (joinders). 3 L.R. 54-14(b). 26 27 28 1 1 and edited and that the fees and costs charged were reasonable.”4 And Local Rule 54-14(d) 2 warns that “Failure to provide t[his] information . . . in a motion for attorney’s fees may be 3 deemed a consent to the denial of the motion.”5 Neither the original motion to enforce the settlement nor the countermotion for attorneys’ 4 5 fees contains the information that the local rule requires of motions for attorneys’ fees. 6 Accordingly, I apply LR 54-14(d), construe the failure of either side to include this required 7 information as a consent to deny the motions, and deny both of them. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request for attorneys’ fees contained in the 8 9 Emergency Motion to Enforce Settlement [ECF No. 162] and the Countermotion for Attorneys’ 10 Fees [ECF No. 173] are DENIED. 11 Dated this 12th day of February, 2018. ________________________________ ___________________ _ _ _ __ _ U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey Jennifer District is ist c J n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 L.R. 54-14(c). 5 L.R. 54-14(d). 2

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?