Teras Chartering, LLC v. Hyupjin Shipping Co., Ltd
Filing
102
ORDER granting Defendant's 94 Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Defendant Hyupjin Shipping Co., Ltd. is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $254,316.00. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
7
8
TERAS CHARTERING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11
HYUPJIN SHIPPING CO., LTD,
12
Defendant.
13
14
)
) CASE NO. C16-0188 RSM
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
) ATTORNEYS’ FEES
)
)
)
)
)
)
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees. Dkt.
15
#94. This motion follows a two-day bench trial and Order from this Court directing a verdict in
16
17
favor of Defendant. Dkts. #89, #90 and #92. Defendant now asks the Court for an award of
18
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $254,316.00. Dkt. #94. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the
19
motion.
20
“When it sets a fee, the district court must first determine the presumptive lodestar figure
21
22
by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by the reasonable
23
hourly rate.” Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993). The reasonable
24
hourly rate is determined with reference to the prevailing rates charged by attorneys of
25
comparable skill and experience in the relevant community. See Blum v. Stetson, 465 U.S. 886,
26
895 (1984). In determining the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation, the Court
27
28
may exclude any excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours billed. Hensley v.
ORDER
PAGE - 1
1
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). The Court may also adjust the lodestar with reference to
2
factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir. 1975). The
3
relevant Kerr factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the
4
questions; and (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly. “The lodestar amount
5
presumably reflects the novelty and complexity of the issues, the special skill and experience of
6
7
8
counsel, the quality of representation, and the results obtained from the litigation.” Intel, 6 F.3d
at 622.
9
As an initial matter, the Court notes that “[e]xcept for motions for summary judgment, if
10
a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court
11
as an admission that the motion has merit.” LCR 7(b)(2). Given the history of this matter, the
12
13
Court deems Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to be such an admission.
14
Turning to the reasonableness of the requested rates, the Court finds the rates to be
15
reasonable. Defendant seeks rates of $265/hour for attorney Chris Nicoll, $200/hour for attorney
16
Jeremy Jones, and $125/hour for their paralegal. Dkt. #95 at ¶ 3. “The party seeking fees bears
17
18
the burden of documenting the hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence
19
supporting . . . the rates claimed.” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir.
20
2007) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433). In the Ninth Circuit, “the determination of a reasonable
21
hourly rate ‘is not made by reference to the rates actually charged the prevailing party.’” Welch,
22
480 F.3d at 946 (quoting Mendenhall v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd., 213 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir.
23
24
2000)). “Rather, billing rates should be established by reference to the fees that private attorneys
25
of an ability and reputation comparable to that of prevailing counsel charge their paying clients
26
for legal work of similar complexity.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). “Affidavits of the
27
plaintiffs’ attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community, and rate
28
ORDER
PAGE - 2
1
determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney, are
2
satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge
3
Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). “Generally, when determining a reasonable hourly
4
rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.” Camacho v. Bridgeport
5
Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (vacating award of attorneys’ fees in Fair Debt
6
7
8
Collection Practices Act case where district court failed to identify the relevant community or
address the prevailing market rate).
9
In this case, Defendant has presented evidence supporting the reasonableness of the rates
10
requested in this market. See Dkts. #95, #96 and #97. Given the Court’s familiarity with the
11
market and the rates typically charged by experienced attorneys in these types of cases, the Court
12
13
finds the rates to be reasonable. The Court also notes that Plaintiff does not challenge any of the
14
rates requested by Defendant.
15
16
The Court now turns to the reasonableness of the hours requested. “The party seeking
fees bears the burden of documenting the hours expended in the litigation and must submit
17
18
evidence supporting” the request. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Defendant has presented a summary
19
of the time spent defending this action, along with supporting Declarations explaining the reasons
20
that those hours were incurred, plus information regarding complications caused by the fact that
21
the parties are international. Dkts. #95 and #96. The record supports the number of hours
22
requested, and Plaintiff has declined to oppose the request. Accordingly, the Court will award
23
24
Defendant the total hours requested. The Court does not find it necessary to make any lodestar
25
adjustments. Defendant has sought an award of costs through a separate Bill of Costs, which
26
remains pending before the Court.
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 3
1
Having considered Defendant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, the Declarations and
2
Exhibits in support thereof, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS
3
that Defendant’s motion (Dkt. #94) is GRANTED. Defendant Hyupjin Shipping Co., Ltd. is
4
awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $254,316.00.
5
DATED this 25th day of April 2018.
6
A
7
8
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
PAGE - 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?