National Labor Relations Board, Region 19 v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union et al

Filing 122

ORDER - The Court has reviewed Petitioner's requested costs and expenses (Dkt. 121 ) and finds them reasonable. Accordingly, Respondents are ordered to pay Petitioner $59,628.18 as reasonable costs and expenses incurred in investigating and litigating the civil contempt proceedings. Signed on 3/9/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

RONALD K. HOOKS, Regional Director of
the Nineteenth Region of the National Labor
Relations Board, for and on behalf of the
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Case No. 3:12-cv-01088-SI
ORDER

Petitioner,
v.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 8;
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 40; and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION,
Respondents.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
On December 16, 2014, the Court found Respondents ILWU and ILWU Local 8 in
contempt of the preliminary injunction issued by the Court, enjoining Respondents from
engaging in certain work slowdowns and stoppages at Terminal 6 at the Port of Portland.
Dkt. 114. The Court found Respondents ILWU and ILWU Local 8 in contempt for the time
period from July 20, 2012 through August 13, 2013. The Court ordered as one of the remedies
that Respondents pay to Petitioner all reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable
PAGE 1 – ORDER

attorney’s fees, incurred by Petitioner in the investigation, preparation, presentation, and final
disposition of the contempt proceeding. On February 13, 2015, Petitioner filed an affidavit
detailing their costs and expenses, in the amount of $59,628.18. Dkt. 121. Respondents did not
object to the requested costs and expenses.
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s requested costs and expenses (Dkt. 121) and finds
them reasonable.1 Accordingly, Respondents are ordered to pay Petitioner $59,628.18 as
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in investigating and litigating the civil contempt
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of March, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge

1

The Court notes that Petitioner calculated the requested attorney hourly rates based on
the “Laffey Matrix,” which is a matrix of years of experience and hourly rates for the District of
Columbia and is maintained by the United States Department of Justice. Although Petitioner
adjusted the Laffey matrix to more accurately reflect rates in the Portland legal market, the Court
declines to consider the Laffey Matrix, as its applicability to the Portland legal market is
questionable. See, e.g., Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 454 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[J]ust because the Laffey matrix has been accepted in the District of Columbia does not mean
that it is a sound basis for determining rates elsewhere, let alone in a legal market 3,000 miles
away.”); League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. U.S. Forest
Service, 2014 WL 3546858, at *14 n.11 (D. Or. July 15, 2014) (declining to consider the Laffey
matrix in determining a reasonable fee award in the Portland market); Fitzgerald v. Law Office of
Curtis O. Barnes, 2013 WL 1627740, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“Neither the Laffey Matrix nor the
Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report provide data on prevailing rates in the Eastern
District of California, Fresno Division. Hence both are irrelevant to determining reasonable
hourly rates for Plaintiff’s counsel.”). The Court has evaluated the requested hourly rates
considering the Oregon State Bar 2012 Economic Survey and the Morones Survey of
Commercial Litigation Fees, updated as of January 1, 2012 and finds the requested rates to be
reasonable.
PAGE 2 – ORDER