Morrison v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. et al
Filing
57
ORDER - P's 53 Motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED IN PART on the basis that P shall be awarded $6,607.50 in fees, reduced from the requested $8,685.00. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/19/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JK)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
AMANDA D. MORRISON,
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
SARAH K. BRANNAN,
)
Defendant.
)
)
___________________________________ )
3:09-cv-00552-RCJ-VPC
ORDER
14
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (#53). On October
15
24, 2011, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (#43) and found
16
that Plaintiff had suffered damages and is entitled to a default judgment. The Court ordered
17
Plaintiff to file a proposed form of judgment and a motion for attorney’s fees and a bill of costs.
18
On June 4, 2012, the Court noted that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order
19
requiring the filing of a proposed judgment, motion for attorney’s fees, and a bill of costs.
20
Plaintiff was given additional time to file the required documents.
21
Plaintiff requests fees in the amount of $8,685. Plaintiff’s attorney submitted an
22
itemization of the requested fees. Plaintiff’s attorney, however, appears to have miscalculated
23
the amount of fees he may request with respect to the default judgment against defendant
24
Brannan. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the itemization set forth in Exhibit 1 presents a claim
25
for 51.7 hours at $300 an hour for the litigation against defendant Brannan and Defendant
26
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) dismissed pursuant to stipulation and order, which he
27
halves in order to calculate the amount due with respect to defendant Brannan, for a total of
28
$6,630.00, plus an additional claim of $2,055.00 exclusively against Brannan subsequent to
1
the other defendant’s dismissal, for a total of $8,685.00. The Court is unable to replicate
2
Plaintiff’s calculations, as the 51.7 hours figure includes the hours spent exclusively on
3
defendant Brannan, which Plaintiff added separately in the amount of $2,055.00, but even
4
taking that error into account, the calculations appear to be incorrect based on the submitted
5
itemization.
6
Exhibit 1 lists 44.95 hours spent on the case prior to Wells Fargo’s dismissal. These
7
hours, however, include 6.1 hours spent negotiating and finalizing the settlement for Wells
8
Fargo’s dismissal, and should not, therefore, be included in the fees requested against
9
defendant Brannan. The itemization also includes 8.5 hours spent responding to Wells Fargo’s
10
motion to dismiss. The remaining hours, 30.35 hours, include time spent in the action
11
applicable against both defendants. While the Court is unsure of whether Plaintiff’s method
12
of simply halving those shared hours in order to calculate fees against Brannan is orthodox,
13
the Court finds that doing so in this case leads to a fee that would not be unreasonable.
14
Plaintiff also itemized hours spent solely on Plaintiff’s claim against Brannan, such as time
15
spent drafting the request for default, and preparing for the default judgment hearing, in the
16
amount of 6.85 hours. Therefore, the Court shall award fees in the amount of $6,607.50
17
against defendant Brannan, a fee calculated by awarding $300 per hour for a total of 22.025
18
hours. The Court finds that under the results achieved, a settlement with Wells Fargo after
19
successfully defending in part against a motion to dismiss, and a default judgment against
20
Brannan, the amount of fees is not unreasonable.
21
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees
22
(#53) is GRANTED IN PART on the basis that Plaintiff shall be awarded $6,607.50 in fees,
23
reduced from the requested $8,685.00.
24
25
Dated: This 19th day of December, 2012.
DATED: This _____ day of November, 2012.
26
27
_________________________________
United States District Judge
28
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?