Wing v. Gillis

Filing 196

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 173 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Clerk is directed to disburse $7,619.15 to Schwab's counsel of record from the $34,052.73 Schwab previously deposited into the Courts registry. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells on 10/3/13. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ROBERT G. WING, as Receiver for VESCOR
CAPITAL CORP., a Nevada corporation, et
al.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY
FEES

Plaintiff,
v.
BRUCE S. GILLIS, individually and as trustee
of the BRUCE S. GILLIS MD MPH INC.
PENSION TRUST and as trustee of the
CLOUD NINE AVIATION, LLC
RETIREMENT TRUST,

Case No. 2:09-CV-314
District Judge Dee Benson
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

Defendants.

Before the Court is Charles Schwab & Co. Inc.’s Motion to Approve Amount of
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 1 Previously, the Court granted Schwab’s Motion to Intervene and
awarded Schwab “its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs” in connection with the Motion to
Intervene. 2 Schwab has submitted an affidavit concerning its fees 3 and pursuant to Court order
has also submitted the time records supporting Schwab’s request. 4
Schwab seeks $7,619.15 in fees and costs. 5 The Court has carefully reviewed the in
camera submission, the motion and the accompanying affidavit. After a review of these

1

Docket no. 173.

2

Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Motion to Intervene p. 2, docket no. 151.

3

Docket no. 173-1.

4

Docket no. 188.

5

In its in camera submission Schwab notes that it is not seeking the actual total of fees and costs but a reduced
amount.

materials the Court finds that the fees sought by Schwab are reasonable and comparable to
similar fees charged for such work. The Court therefore
GRANTS Schwab’s Motion to Approve Amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The
Clerk is directed to disburse $7,619.15 to Schwab’s counsel of record from the $34,052.73
Schwab previously deposited into the Court’s registry. 6
IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED this 3 October 2013.

Brooke C. Wells
United States Magistrate Judge

6

See U. S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Sidwell, 525 F.2d 472, 475 (10th Cir. 1975) (noting the district court correctly
followed the common practice that “ordinarily a fund so deposited [in interpleader] is chargeable with the
reasonable fees incurred.”); Trs. of the Dirs. Guild of America-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d
415, 426 (9th Cir. 2000) ("The amount of fees to be awarded in an interpleader action is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court."); Schirmer Stevedoring Co. v. Seaboard Stevedoring Corp., 306 F.2d 188, 194 (9th
Cir. 1962) ("[T]he proper rule, in an action in the nature of interpleader, is that the plaintiff should be awarded
attorney fees for the services of his attorneys in interpleading."); First Sec. Bank of Utah, NA. v. Maxwell, 659 P .2d
1078, 1082 (Utah 1983) (upholding award of interpleader-bank's fees to be paid from the funds deposited in court).

2