JIVE Commerce v. Wine Racks America et al

Filing 122

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER : Awarding Attorney's fees. See order for details. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 9/25/2019. (las)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
JIVE COMMERCE, LLC D/B/A VINO
GROTTO, a Utah limited liability company,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S
FEES

Plaintiff,
v.
WINE RACKS AMERICA, INC. D/B/A
PREMIER WINE CELLARS, a Utah
corporation; and JEFFREY OGZEWALLA,
an individual,

Case No. 1:18-CV-49 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

On August 6, 2019, the Court awarded Plaintiff its attorney’s fees and costs in bringing
its motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Plaintiff has now provided declarations in
support of its request for attorney’s fees and costs, and Defendants have filed their response.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s requested fees are excessive. Defendants argue that
Plaintiff’s requested fees should be reduced because the matter was simple, it did not require the
work of two attorneys, and could have been handled more efficiently by Plaintiff’s counsel.
“To determine the reasonableness of a fee request, a court must begin by calculating the
so-called ‘lodestar amount’ of a fee, and a claimant is entitled to the presumption that this
lodestar amount reflects a ‘reasonable’ fee.” 1 “The lodestar calculation is the product of the
number of attorney hours ‘reasonably expended’ and a ‘reasonable hourly rate.’” 2 Defendants

1

Robinson v. City of Edmond, 160 F.3d 1275, 1281 (10th Cir. 1998).

2

Id.
1

do not appear to contest the reasonableness of the billing rates of Plaintiff’s counsel. Thus, the
only remaining issue is the reasonableness of the hours expended by Plaintiff’s attorneys.
“Counsel for the party claiming the fees has the burden of proving hours to the district
court by submitting meticulous, contemporaneous time records that reveal, for each lawyer for
whom fees are sought, all hours for which compensation is requested and how those hours were
allotted to specific tasks.” 3 The Court must examine these records to determine whether the time
expended on each task is reasonable. 4
A fee award may be reduced because hours were redundant, excessive, improperly billed,
or otherwise not reasonably expended. 5 The Court’s overriding consideration is “whether
attorney’s hours were ‘necessary’ under the circumstances.” 6 “In this analysis, [the Court] ask[s]
what hours a reasonable attorney would have incurred and billed in the marketplace under
similar circumstances.” 7
Having carefully reviewed the declarations submitted by Plaintiff, the Court concludes
that the hours incurred were reasonable. Therefore, the Court awards Plaintiff fees and costs in
the amount of $10,677.50.
SO ORDERED.

3

Case v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 233, 157 F.3d 1243, 1250 (10th Cir. 1998).

4

Id.

5

See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–34 (1983).

6

Robinson, 160 F.3d at 1281.

7

Id.
2

DATED this 25th day of September, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

3