Alexander et al v. Meiling et al

Filing 245

ORDER - It is therefore ordered that Defendants are entitled to attorneys' fees from Plaintiffs in the amount of $748,397.25.The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment (ECF No. 181 ) in favor of Defendants on their requested fees accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/7/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DLS)

Case 3:16-cv-00572-MMD-CLB Document 245 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

JERRY ALEXANDER, et al.,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00572-MMD-CLB
Plaintiffs,

7

ORDER

v.
8
DEAN MEILING, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11

Plaintiffs, investors in Metalast International, LLC (“Metalast”), initiated this putative

12

class action against Defendants, other investors in Metalast and their alleged co-

13

conspirators, for purportedly engaging in a fraudulent scheme to take Metalast through a

14

receivership proceeding and win control of Metalast from Plaintiffs, at a discount, and

15

without compensating Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1 at 10-11.) Defendants prevailed both before

16

this Court and on appeal. In pertinent part, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

17

Circuit ordered the Court to award Defendants their reasonable attorneys’ fees. (ECF No.

18

227 at 6.) The Court accordingly directed Defendants to file an affidavit supporting the

19

reasonableness of the fees they won, and gave Plaintiffs the opportunity to object. (ECF

20

No. 230.) Defendants filed their affidavit (ECF No. 231), and Plaintiffs filed their objections

21

(ECF No. 233).1 As further explained below, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections and

22

will award Defendants their requested fees.

23

Defendants support the reasonableness of their fees request with affidavits from

24

their counsel, copies of spreadsheets reflecting the tasks performed by their counsel and

25

the amounts charged for them, and argument directed to the factors described in LR 54-

26

14 and Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (Nev. 1969). (ECF Nos. 231,

27
28

1Defendants

then filed a response to Plaintiffs’ objections. (ECF No. 235.)

Case 3:16-cv-00572-MMD-CLB Document 245 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 3

1

231-1, 231-2; see also ECF Nos. 184, 184-1, 184-2, 184-3, 184-4, 184-5, 184-6, 185, 185-

2

1.) The Court agrees with Defendants’ overall contention that their requested fees are

3

reasonable based on their submissions.

4

Plaintiffs first object that Defendants had partners do work that associates could

5

have done resulting in overbilling. (ECF No. 233 at 3-8.) Plaintiffs twice presented this

6

argument to the Ninth Circuit in their appeals from this case, and the Ninth Circuit twice

7

rejected it. (ECF Nos. 243 at 5, 244 at 3.) The Court rejects this argument for the same

8

reason the Ninth Circuit rejected it. (Id.)

9

Plaintiffs next object that Defendants’ spreadsheet exhibits showing what their

10

counsel spent time on are so heavily block billed and redacted that it is impossible for the

11

Court to judge whether their request for fees is reasonable. (ECF No. 233 at 8-12.) Having

12

reviewed the spreadsheets, the Court disagrees. (ECF Nos. 184-1, 185-1, 231-1.) And

13

while it is true that the time entries contain some redactions, the Court can still generally

14

tell what work was performed for each time entry (see generally id.), and Defendants’

15

counsel are entitled to redact attorney-client privileged and work product material from the

16

time entries they submit to the Court. See Democratic Party of Washington State v. Reed,

17

388 F.3d 1281, 1286 (9th Cir. 2004).

18

And that brings the Court to Plaintiffs’ broader objection, which is that Defendants

19

overbilled by spending an unreasonable amount of time on the various tasks documented

20

in the spreadsheets they submitted for the Court’s review. (ECF No. 233.) But Plaintiffs

21

present no standard or caselaw to judge whether the amount of time Defendants spent

22

was unreasonable, nor do Plaintiffs present any specific argument as to why the individual

23

time entries they call out in their objection were unreasonable. The Court will not scrutinize

24

each time entry Plaintiffs object to where, as here, Plaintiffs have not even tried to explain

25

why each one was unreasonable.

26

Plaintiffs’ argument attempting to put a cost on each word Defendants wrote in their

27

filed briefs is also unpersuasive because it often takes longer to effectively write something

28

shorter. (ECF No. 233 at 2.) This concept is axiomatic. At least one footnoted website
2

Case 3:16-cv-00572-MMD-CLB Document 245 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 3

1

attributes it to “the French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal[,]” who, in 1657,

2

wrote in a letter the sentence (roughly translated), “I have made this longer than usual

3

because I have not had time to make it shorter.” See Quote Investigator, If I Had More

4

Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter (Apr. 28, 2012), https://perma.cc/M66G-

5

ZPAC. The number of words Defendants’ counsel filed with the Court is not a reasonable

6

standard to judge the reasonableness of their requested fees. Plaintiffs’ general argument

7

that Defendants could have taken less time is indeed impossible to meaningfully evaluate

8

beyond being merely unpersuasive.

9
10

In sum, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections and will award Defendants their
requested fees.

11

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases

12

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines

13

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before

14

the Court.

15
16
17
18
19

It is therefore ordered that Defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees from Plaintiffs
in the amount of $748,397.25.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment (ECF No. 181) in favor of
Defendants on their requested fees accordingly and close this case.
DATED THIS 7th Day of August 2023.

20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3