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