Sonoro Invest S.A. v. Miller et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No.: 2:15-cv-2286-JAD-CWH
4 Sonoro Invest S.A., a Panamanian corporation,
Order Denying Award of
7 Robert Miller, et al.,
[ECF No. 162, 173]
When the settlement payment was delayed in this case, the plaintiff moved to enforce the
11 settlement agreement and asked for an award of attorney’s fees for having to file the enforcement
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
15 their own award of fees.
Local Rule 54-14 governs motions for attorneys’ fees and contains extensive, detailed
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
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
ECF No. 162.
ECF No. 173 (countermotion); ECF Nos. 169, 170, 171 (joinders).
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’
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
9 Emergency Motion to Enforce Settlement [ECF No. 162] and the Countermotion for Attorneys’
10 Fees [ECF No. 173] are DENIED.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2018.
_ _ __ _
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey
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?