Afinwala v. La Trelles Express Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER granting plaintiff's 12 Motion for Attorney Fees by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

IKRAM AFINWALA,

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

LA TRELLES EXPRESS, INC.,

12

Defendant.

CASE NO. C16-1707 RSM

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND
COSTS

13

I.

14

INTRODUCTION

15

On January 6, 2017, this Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff Ikram Afinwala’s

16

Motion for Remand. Dkt. #11. As part of that Order, the Court found Mr. Afinwala is entitled

17

to an award for the fees and costs he incurred in bringing his Motion for Remand. Id. at 5. At
18
19

the Court’s direction, Mr. Afinwala filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Dkt. #12.

20

Mr. Afinwala seeks attorney fees and costs in the amount of $10,556.47. Id. at 1. Defendant

21

filed no response to Mr. Afinwala’s motion.1 For the reasons set forth herein, the Court

22

GRANTS Mr. Afinwala’s motion.

23
24
25

II.

26
27
28

BACKGROUND

1

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7 (b)(2) “[e]xcept for motions for summary judgment, if a party
fails to file papers in opposition to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an
admission that the motion has merit.”
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS- 1

The Court has previously set forth the relevant background to this action and

1
2

incorporates it by reference herein. See Dkt. #11 at 1-2.

3

III.

4

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), an order remanding a case may require the payment of just

5

costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by a party because of removal.
6
7

Courts determine fee award amounts by first calculating a “lodestar figure,” which is obtained

8

by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a matter by the reasonable hourly

9

rate. Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int’l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993). Courts may then

10

adjust the lodestar with reference to factors set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526

11

F.2d 67, 69-70 (9th Cir. 1975). The relevant Kerr factors here are: (1) the time and labor
12
13

required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; and (3) the skill requisite to perform

14

the legal services properly.

15

complexity of the issues, the special skill and experience of counsel, the quality of

“The lodestar amount presumably reflects the novelty and

16

representation, and the results obtained from the litigation.” Intel, 6 F.3d at 622. Given this
17
18

standard, the Court finds the attorney fee amount requested by Mr. Afinwala to be reasonable.
A. Reasonableness of the Rates Requested

19
20

21

rates actually charged the prevailing party.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205

In the Ninth Circuit, determining a reasonable hourly rate “is not made by reference to

22

(9th Cir. 1986). Instead, the reasonable hourly rate is determined by referring to the prevailing
23
24

rates charged by attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the relevant community. See

25

Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). “Generally, when determining a reasonable hourly

26

rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.”

27

Camacho v.

Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). Courts may also consider “rate

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS- 2

1

determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the plaintiffs’ attorney” as

2

“satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps

3

Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990).

4

Mr. Afinwala’s counsel requests a range of hourly rates. See Dkt. #13 at 7. Five

5

attorneys, Adam Berger, Jennifer Robbins, Lindsay Halm, Jamal Whitehead, and Laura Ewan,
6
7

worked on Mr. Afinwala’s Motion for Remand and Motion for Attorney Fees. Id. at 1-4. The

8

following hourly rates are requested for each attorney: (1) a rate of $485 for Mr. Berger; (2) a

9

rate of $365 for Jennifer Robbins; (3) a rate of $350 for Ms. Halm; (4) a rate of $325 for Mr.

10

Whitehead; and (5) a rate of $305 for Ms. Ewan. Id. at 7. In addition to these attorneys, two

11

paralegals, Jennifer Woodard and Sheila Cronan, are also included as timekeepers in
12
13

Mr. Afinwala’s request for attorney fees. Id. at 4. Hourly rates of $150 and $140, respectively,

14

are requested for Ms. Woodward and Ms. Cronan. Id. at 7. To support the rates requested,

15

Mr. Afinwala includes orders, issued in this district and in King County Superior Court in

16

2015, where hourly rates ranging from $455 to $425 were awarded for Mr. Berger’s work, an
17
18

hourly rate of $305 was awarded for Ms. Robbins’s work, a rate of $230 was awarded for Ms.

19

Ewan’s work, rates ranging between $140 and $130 were awarded for Ms. Cronan’s work, and

20

a rate of $140 was awarded for Ms. Woodward’s work. See Dkt. #13 Exs. 1-3.

21

Mr. Afinwala contends the hourly rates he requests are reasonable “based on the

22

experience, skill, and education of the respective timekeepers, and because they are consistent
23
24

with other rates approved by this court and the King County Superior Court.” Dkt. #12 at 3-4.

25

Having considered counsel’s declaration, along with the attorney fees orders issued by this

26

district and King County Superior Court, the Court agrees. The hourly rate requested for each

27

timekeeper is reasonable.

28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS- 3

1

B. Reasonableness of the Number of Hours Requested

2

Turning to the reasonableness of the hours requested, the Court notes the party seeking

3

fees “bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate

4

hours expended and hourly rates.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The Court

5

also excludes hours not reasonably expended because they are “excessive, redundant, or
6
7

otherwise unnecessary.” Id. at 434. Further, the Ninth Circuit has held that it is reasonable for

8

a district court to conclude that the party seeking attorney’s fees fails to carry its burden of

9

documenting the hours expended when that party engages in “block billing” because block

10

billing makes it more difficult to determine how much time was spent on particular activities.

11

Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007).
12
13

The following amount of time was spent by each attorney who worked on Mr.

14

Afinwala’s Motion to Remand: (1) Mr. Berger devoted 1.7 hours in seeking remand; (2) Ms.

15

Robbins devoted 2.2 hours in seeking remand; (3) Ms. Halm devoted .4 hours in seeking

16

remand; (4) Ms. Ewan devoted 1.6 hours in seeking remand; and (5) Mr. Whitehead devoted
17
18

45.7 hours in seeking remand and in drafting Mr. Afinwala’s Motion for Attorney Fees. Dkt.

19

#13 at 5-7. Ms. Woodward devoted .4 hours in seeking remand, and Ms. Cronan devoted 3.5

20

hours in seeking remand. Id. at 6. In total, Mr. Afinwala’s counsel expended 55.5 hours, for a

21

total lodestar amount of $17,658, to secure remand. Id. at 7. However, instead of requesting

22

attorney fees for the lodestar amount of $17,658, Mr. Afinwala’s counsel only requests
23
24

$10,000. Id. Mr. Afinwala explains this request was limited “in part to exclude all time from

25

the fee petition that the Court may deem excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, or

26

that is solely clerical in nature.” Id.

27
28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS- 4

1

The Court agrees that $10,000 reflects a reasonable attorney fee amount for Mr.

2

Afinwala’s counsel’s work. Mr. Afinwala’s request for costs in the amount of $566.47, which

3

includes the costs of photocopies, records retrieval, and computer research, is also reasonable.

4

Mr. Afinwala’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is accordingly GRANTED.

5

C. Lodestar Adjustment
6
7
8
9
10

The Court finds that a lodestar fee award of $10,000 reflects the reasonable time spent
in seeking remand and does not find it necessary to make any lodestar adjustments.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Having considered Mr. Afinwala’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. #12), the

11

Declaration (Dkt. #13) and Exhibits in support thereof, along with the remainder of the record,
12
13

the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Mr. Afinwala’s motion (Dkt. #12) is GRANTED.

14

Mr. Afinwala is awarded fees in the amount of $10,556.47.

15
16

DATED this 19th day of April 2017.

17
18
19
20
21

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS- 5