Bank Of New York Mellon v. Braewood Heritage Association, Inc. et al

Filing 50

ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs (ECF No. 48 ) is denied without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/30/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6
7
8
9
10

THE BANK OF NEY YORK MELLON FK
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF THE
CWALT, INC. ALTERNATIVE LOAN
TRUST 2006-33CF, MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006-33CB
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00336-MMD-DJA
ORDER

11
12

BRAEWOOD HERITAGE ASSOCIATION,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

I.

SUMMARY

16

Before the Court is Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for

17

attorney fees and costs (“Motion”) against Defendant Marian L. Hammond (“Hammond”).

18

(ECF No. 48.) Because Plaintiff has failed to submit sufficient information regarding its

19

attorneys’ fees, the Motion is denied.

20

II.

BACKGROUND

21

The relevant facts are recited in the Court’s order. (ECF No 28.) As relevant here,

22

the Court granted default judgment against Hammond on Plaintiff’s judicial foreclosure

23

claim. (ECF No. 45.) Plaintiff now brings this Motion to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs

24

under the deed of trust, providing for the lender to recover such fees. (ECF No. 48; ECF

25

No. 45 at 19.)

26

III.

DISCUSSION

27

“The part[y] seeking attorney's fees must establish [among other things] that the

28

fees are reasonable.” City Nat'l Bank v. Charleston Assocs., LLC, No. 2:11cv-2023-MMD-

1

PAL, 2017 WL 1158816, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 28, 2017). Reasonable attorney’s fees are

2

based on the “lodestar” calculation set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433

3

(1983). See Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). Courts must

4

first determine a reasonable fee by multiplying “the number of hours reasonably expended

5

on the litigation” by “a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Courts consider

6

the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees when determining the

7

reasonableness of an hourly rate. Webb v. Ada County, 285 F.3d 829, 840 & n.6 (9th Cir.

8

2002). A reasonable hourly rate should reflect the prevailing market rates of attorneys

9

practicing in the forum community for “similar services by lawyers of reasonably

10

comparable skill, experience and reputation.” See id.; Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-

11

96 n.11 (1984). “The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence supporting

12

the . . . rates claimed.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; see also Jordan v. Multnomah Cnty.,

13

815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987). A rate determined through affidavits is normally

14

deemed to be reasonable. Blum, 465 U.S. at 895-96 n.11.

15

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information for the Court to determine whether

16

the attorneys’ fees sought by Plaintiff are reasonable and are incurred relating to the

17

judicial foreclosure claim against Hammond. The latter deficiency is important given that

18

Plaintiff asserted and litigated claims against other defendants. 1 Plaintiff’s counsel Jamie

19

K. Combs submits an affidavit (the “Affidavit”) discussing partner Natalie L. Winslow’s

20

involvement in the case, her experience in practice and her credentials. (ECF No. 48-1 at

21

2.) The Affidavit broadly outlines that “rates charged ranged from $135 per hour for

22

paralegals to $375 for partners.” (Id. at 3.) However, Plaintiff has failed to identify the seven

23

other individuals who have charged Plaintiff fees and whose work altogether constitutes

24

half of the total hours worked in this case. (See generally, ECF No. 48-2.) These

25
26
27
28

1For

example, one of Plaintiff’s counsel’s work entry charges $229.50 in connection
with “[r]eviewing Court Docket/prior pleadings in preparation for drafting Request to Enter
Default, Default by Clerk, Attorney Affidavit in Support of Default of Nyla G. Carson and
Marian L. Hammond and draft same.” (ECF No. 48-2 at 16 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff
cannot seek attorneys’ fees from Hammond for work Plaintiff’s counsel did in relation to
Co-Defendant Carson.
2

1

individuals are only identified by their initials (TAW, CJH, NMF, DTB, DH, KAW, and JKC),

2

but their positions at the firm, rates, experiences, and credentials remain unclear. 2 (Id.)

3

Without more, the Court cannot determine whether Plaintiff is seeking reasonable

4

attorneys’ fees.

5

IV.

6
7
8

CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs (ECF No.

48) is denied without prejudice.
DATED THIS 30th day of March 2020.

9
10
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2The

Court advises Plaintiff that an aggregation of each person’s hours would
further assist the Court in determining the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.
3