Waste Action Project v. Buckley Recycle Center Inc

Filing 135

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 127 Motion for Attorney Fees by Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. Plaintiff is awarded fees in the amount of $10,458.40 and costs in the amount of $75.13, for a total of $10,533.53.(SSM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

WASTE ACTION PROJECT

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BUCKLEY RECYCLE CENTER, INC., et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
))
I.

15
16
17

CASE NO. C13-1184RSM

SECOND ORDER GRANTING IN PART
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES

INTRODUCTION

On December 7, 2016, this Court granted Plaintiff’s third motion to enforce the
settlement agreement, and awarded attorney’s fees to Plaintiff. Dkt. #126. At the Court’s

18

direction, Plaintiff has filed a Supplemental Motion for Attorney’s Fees detailing the fees and
19
20

costs requested. Dkt. #127. Plaintiff seeks $12,428.75 in fees and $87.89 in costs, for a total

21

award of $12,516.64. Dkts. #127 and #128. Defendants oppose the requested fees, arguing

22

that they are excessive. Dkts. #131 and #132. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court now

23

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion.

24

II.

BACKGROUND

25
26
27

The Court has previously set forth the relevant background to this action and
incorporates it by reference herein. See Dkts. #89, #108 and #126.

28

ORDER
PAGE - 1

III.

1

A. Legal Standard

2

“When it sets a fee, the district court must first determine the presumptive lodestar

3
4

DISCUSSION

figure by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the

5

reasonable hourly rate.” Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993).
6
7

The reasonable hourly rate is determined with reference to the prevailing rates charged by

8

attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the relevant community. See Blum v. Stetson,

9

465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). In determining the reasonable number of hours expended on the

10

litigation, the Court may exclude any excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours

11

billed. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). The Court may also adjust the lodestar
12
13

with reference to factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th

14

Cir. 1975). The relevant Kerr factors here are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty

15

and difficulty of the questions; and (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly.

16

“The lodestar amount presumably reflects the novelty and complexity of the issues, the special
17
18
19

skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation, and the results obtained from the
litigation.” Intel, 6 F.3d at 622.

20

B. Reasonableness of Rates

21

This Court has previously determined that the hourly rates requested by Plaintiff’s

22

counsel are reasonable, and Defendants have not objected to those. See Dkt. #97; Waste Action
23
24

Project v. Astro Auto Wrecking LLC, Case No. C15-0796JCC (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2016) at

25

Dkt. #28 (awarding fees at 2016 hourly rates).

26

///

27

///

28

ORDER
PAGE - 2

C. Reasonableness of Hours

1
2

Now turning to the reasonableness of the hours requested, the Court notes “[t]he party

3

seeking fees bears the burden of documenting the hours expended in the litigation and must

4

submit evidence supporting” the request. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. As noted above, the Court

5

excludes those hours that are not reasonably expended because they are “excessive, redundant,
6
7

or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that it

8

is reasonable for a district court to conclude that the party seeking attorney’s fees fails to carry

9

its burden of documenting the hours expended when that party engages in “block billing”

10

because block billing makes it more difficult to determine how much time was spent on

11

particular activities.

Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007).

12
13

Likewise, intra-office conferences between experienced counsel, absent persuasive justification

14

by the moving party, may be excluded from an award as unnecessary and duplicative. See id.

15

at 949.

16

Plaintiff has presented a detailed description of billing time related to bringing its
17
18

second motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Dkt. #128. As an initial matter, the Court

19

will not award fees for Plaintiff’s counsel to consult with their client, as the Court finds such

20

activity to be analogous to intra-office conferences. Likewise, the Court will deduct time billed

21

for meetings between Attorney Tonry and Attorney Smith. Not only does this time constitute

22

intra-office conferences, Plaintiff’s counsel has engaged in block billing many of those time
23
24

entries, which leaves the Court unable to adequately attribute the time spent on those particular

25

activities.

26

Plaintiff’s requested fees for the same reasons on prior motions.

27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 3

See Dkt. #128; Welch, 480 F.3d at 948.

The Court has deducted time from

Accordingly, for those entries which the Court can attribute solely to intra-office

1
2

conferences and/or client meetings, the Court will deduct the following:
10/13/2016

Claire Tonry = 0.10 hrs ($27.50)

10/14/2016

Richard Smith = 0.30 hrs ($110.25)

11/17/2016

Richard Smith = 0.10 hrs ($36.75)

11/18/2016

Richard Smith = 0.20 hrs ($73.50)

8

11/29/2016

Richard Smith = 0.30 hrs ($110.25)

9

12/1/2016

Richard Smith = 0.20 hrs ($73.50)

3
4
5
6
7

10

Dkt. #128 at 4-5.

11

Likewise, because the following time has been blocked billed, and includes time that
12
13

either constitutes, or is analogous to, intra-office conferences, the Court will reduce those

14

entries by 20%, and deduct that time as follows:

15

10/14/2016

Claire Tonry = 4.0 hrs ($1,100.00) – 20% ($220.00)

10/17/2016

Claire Tonry = 6.40 hrs ($1,760.00) – 20% ($352.00)

11/18/2016

Richard Smith = 0.50 hrs ($183.75) – 20% ($36.75)

16
17
18
19

Id.

20

Similarly, because the following time has been block billed, leaving the Court unable to

21

make an adequate reasonableness determination, the Court will also reduce those entries by

22

20%, and deduct that time as follows:
23

10/24/2016

Richard Smith = 1.70 hrs ($624.75) – 20% ($124.95)

25

10/31/2016

Richard Smith = 0.40 hrs ($147.00) – 20% ($29.40)

26

11/28/2016

Claire Tonry = 0.60 hrs ($165.00) – 20% ($33.00)

12/2/2016

Claire Tonry = 0.70 hrs ($192.50) – 20% ($38.50)

24

27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 4

1

Dkt. #128 at 4-5.
Finally, the Court will reduce the requested fees by time spent on activities that is

2
3

purely administrative in nature, as follows:

4

10/24/2016

Jessie Sherwood = 0.80 hrs ($108.00)

12/16/2016

Richard Smith = 0.20 hrs ($73.50)

5
6
7

Id.

8

Defendant also argues that certain time billed by Plaintiff’s counsel is duplicative and

9

should be denied, particularly given the experience of the attorneys. Dkt. #131 at 2-3. The

10

Court agrees that some of the time identified by Defendants is duplicative and/or unnecessary

11

and therefore will deduct the following time:
12
13

11/14/2016

Claire Tonry = 0.20 hrs ($55.00)

14

11/18/2016

Caire Tonry = 0.80 hrs ($220.00)

15

11/22/2016

Claire Tonry = 0.60 hrs ($165.00)

12/1/2016

Claire Tonry = 0.30 hrs ($82.50)

16
17
18

Id.
The Court finds the remaining hours requested to be reasonable and will award the fees

19
20

associated with those hours in the total amount of $10,458.40.

21

D. Lodestar Adjustment

22

The Court finds that the time set forth above, less the reductions noted by the Court,
23
24

reflects the reasonable time spent defending this matter and does not find it necessary to make

25

any lodestar adjustments.

26

///

27

///

28

ORDER
PAGE - 5

1

E. Costs

2

Plaintiff also seeks $87.89 in costs. Dkt. #128 at 5. Defendants have objected to some

3

of the requested costs. Dkt. #131 at 3. Having reviewed Defendants’ argument and the costs

4

requested by Plaintiff, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s requested costs with the exception of

5

those related to Ms. Tonry’s attendance at the Court’s status conference on November 18,
6
7
8
9

2016. The Court has already stricken Ms. Tonry’s time for that conference as duplicative
and/or unnecessary, and therefore denies reimbursement for the following costs:
11/18/2016

Claire Tonry = $2.25 (bus fare)

10

= $10.51 (Uber fare)

11

Dkt. #128 at 5. Accordingly, the Court awards $75.13 in costs.
12

IV.

13

CONCLUSION

14

Having considered Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Fees and Costs and the

15

Declaration in support thereof, along with Defendants’ opposition and the remainder of the

16

record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. #127) is GRANTED
17
18
19
20
21

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons discussed above.
Plaintiff is awarded fees in the amount of $10,458.40 and costs in the amount of
$75.13, for a total of $10,533.53.
DATED this 11th day of January, 2017.

22

A

23
24

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 6