Topolewski et al v. Blyschak et al

Filing 89

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 52 , 53 defendants' motions for attorneys fees are DENIED without prejudice. Defendants have until 4/4/17, to file renewed motions for attorneys fees. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 3/21/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Gary Topolewski, et al., 5 2:16-cv-01588-JAD-NJK Plaintiffs Order Denying Motions for Attorney’s Fees 6 v. 7 Paula Blyschak, et al., [ECF Nos. 52, 53] 8 Defendants 9 10 On November 6, 2016, I granted defendants Lee A. Cowley, Joshua Woods, Vivian Cheung, 11 Amir A. Fazel, Aman Walia, Jacqui Ross, Andrea Mosher and their law firm Cowley and Company 12 Law Firm (“the Cowley defendants”) and Tim Kilbrais’s dismissal motions,1 and I dismissed all 13 claims against these defendants with prejudice based on lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that 14 plaintiff’s2 claims also either failed as a matter of law or as plead.3 And because I found that these 15 defects could not be cured by amendment, I denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.4 The 16 Cowley defendants and Kilbrais now separately move for attorney’s fees and costs under FRCP 17 54(d) and NRS 18.010(2).5 18 Though defendants address the merits of plaintiff’s claims and argue that the claims were 19 brought or maintained without reasonable grounds as required for an award of fees under NRS 20 18.010, neither party complies with the requirements of Local Rule 54-14, which requires parties 21 22 1 23 ECF Nos. 11, 12. 2 24 25 At the hearing on the dismissal motions and motion for leave to amend, plaintiffs’ consented to dismissal of all claims brought by Gary Topolewski and Bud Zukaloff leaving only Metal Jeans, Inc. as a plaintiff. 26 3 I did not reach defendants’ claim-preclusion arguments. 27 4 ECF No. 24. 28 5 “ ECF Nos. 52, 53. Page 1 of 2 1 seeking attorney’s fees from this court to provide a “reasonable itemization and description of the 2 work performed,” “[a]n itemization of all costs sought to be charged as part of the fee award and not 3 otherwise taxable” under the local rules, and a brief summary of various factors designed to allow 4 the court to determine whether the fees requested are reasonable. The Cowley defendants attach an 5 itemized list of costs to their motion but offer no billing statements to show how they arrived at the 6 $16,800 in attorney’s fees they request, nor do they address the other factors required under LR 54- 7 14(b)(3). Likewise, Kilbrai attaches no documentation to support his request for more than double 8 that amount in attorney’s fees, and he makes no attempt to explain why these fees are reasonable.6 I 9 am thus unable to tell from the information before me whether these defendants are entitled to the 10 fees they request. I therefore deny both motions for attorney’s fees without prejudice and give 11 defendants until April 4, 2017, to file rule-compliant motions for attorney’s fees. Any future denials 12 will be with prejudice. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motions for attorney’s fees [ECF 14 Nos. 52, 53] are DENIED without prejudice. Defendants have until April 4, 2017, to file 15 renewed motions for attorney’s fees. 16 March 21, 2017 17 _________________________________ Jennifer A. Dorsey United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Kilbrai attaches a supplemental attorney affidavit to his reply, but I decline to consider this information because it was provided for the first time in the reply, which deprived plaintiff of a fair opportunity to respond to it. See ECF No. 66-1. Page 2 of 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?