Block v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 193

ORDER GRANTING IN PART GOLD BAR DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR FEES AND COSTS by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. Plaintiff shall pay to Gold Bar Defendants' (defense counsel Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S.) fees in the amount of $16,311.00 and costs in the amount of $17.40, for a total of $16,328.40. (AD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ANNE BLOCK, an individual,

9

Plaintiff,
10
11
12

v.
WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

I.

CASE NO. C15-2018 RSM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART GOLD
BAR DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR
FEES AND COSTS

INTRODUCTION

16

On June 28, 2016, this Court entered an Order granting former Gold Bar Defendants’
17
18

Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Dkt. #183. The Court then directed those Defendants to submit a

19

detailed description of the fees sought. Id. Gold Bar Defendants submitted a Declaration

20

seeking a total of $16,856.75 in fees and $56.35 in costs associated with their defense of this

21

action. Dkt. #188 at ¶7. The Court denied the request, finding that Gold Bar Defendants had

22

failed to provide adequate information to determine the reasonableness of the fees and costs
23
24

requested. Dkt. #189. The Court then allowed Gold Bar Defendants to submit a supplemental

25

Declaration for review, which they have since provided. Dkt. #192. For the reasons set forth

26

below, the Court now GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Gold Bar Defendants’

27

requested fees and costs for the reasons discussed herein.

28

ORDER
PAGE - 1

II.

1
2
3

BACKGROUND

The Court has previously set forth the relevant background to this action and
incorporates it by reference herein. See Dkts. #84, #122, #136 and #168.

4

III.

DISCUSSION

5

A. Legal Standard
6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the relevant community. See Blum v. Stetson,
12
13

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

14

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

15

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

16

with reference to factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th
17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21

skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation, and the results obtained from the

22

litigation.” Intel, 6 F.3d at 622.
23
24
25
26

B. Reasonableness of Rates
The Court has previously determined that the rates requested by Gold Bar Defendants’
counsel are reasonable. Dkt. #189 at 2-3.

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

Gold Bar Defendants have presented a detailed description of billing time spent in
17
18

defending this action. Dkt. #192, Ex. A. As an initial matter, the Court will not award fees for

19

conferences, telephone calls and emails with Association of Washington Cities claims

20

representative Lynda Hummel, as the Court finds such activity to be analogous to intra-office

21

conferences and emails. Accordingly, the Court will deduct the following hours, which reflect

22

the total time attributed to such activity:
23
24
25
26

AGB = 1.3 hours (1.3 x $252/hr = $327.60)
SMR = 0.3 hours (0.3 x $284/hr = $85.20)
Dkt. #192, Ex. A.

27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 3

1

Likewise, the Court will deduct what it considers to be purely administrative time.

2

Accordingly, the Court will not award time spent by attorney Butler for preparing a retention

3

letter on 2/05/2016, which totals 0.3 hours (0.3 x $252/hr = $76.60). Dkt. #192, Ex. A.

4

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

5

associated with those hours.
6
7

D. Lodestar Adjustment

8

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

9

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

10

any lodestar adjustments.

11

E. Costs
12
13

Gold Bar Defendants seek $56.35 in costs. Dkt. #192, ¶ 4. They have not explained

14

what these costs entail, nor have they provided any legal authority demonstrating that they are

15

entitled to such costs. See id. While the documents attached in support of the request contain a

16

“Disbursements to Date” line item for $56.35, there is no detail as to what those disbursements
17
18

were. See Dkt. #192, Ex. A. There is one notation for photocopy disbursements on February

19

22, 2016, in the amount of $17.40, which the Court finds to be reasonable. Accordingly, the

20

Court limits its award of costs to that amount.

21

IV.

CONCLUSION

22

Having considered former Gold Bar Defendants’ supplemental Declaration in support
23
24
25

of their request for attorney’s fees, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants’
request is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART for the reasons discussed above.

26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 4

1

Plaintiff shall pay to Gold Bar Defendants’ (defense counsel Keating, Bucklin &

2

McCormack, Inc., P.S.) fees in the amount of $16,311.00 and costs in the amount of $17.40,

3

for a total of $16,328.40.

4

DATED this 20th day of July 2016.

5

A

6
7

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 5