Turner v. Life Insurance Company of North America

Filing 56

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 51 Motion for Attorney Fees; directing Clerk to enter judgment and CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 ADASHA TURNER, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 C17-1 TSZ v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ORDER Defendant. 12 13 THIS MATTER, having come before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of 14 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, docket no. 51 (the “Motion”), and being sufficiently advised, 15 having considered the Motion, Defendant’s opposition to the Motion, and Plaintiff’s 16 reply, the Court hereby GRANTS in part, and DENIES in part, Plaintiff’s Motion as set 17 forth below. 18 1. Plaintiff’s request for fees incurred for discovery-related efforts shall be 19 reduced to 20 hours because no more than 20 hours should have been incurred on 20 discovery-related efforts. 21 2. 22 motions. 23 ORDER - 1 Plaintiff’s request for fees will not be reduced for time spent on dispositive 1 3. Plaintiff’s request for fees shall be reduced by 0.8 hours that counsel spent 2 on efforts relating to the reinstatement of Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits. These 3 efforts were unrelated to the case because Plaintiff’s Complaint did not include 4 allegations related to Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits. 5 4. Plaintiff’s request for fees will not be reduced by 2.5 hours that counsel 6 spent communicating with each other about the application of the Western District of 7 Washington’s Local Rules and/or general practices. These efforts were related to the 8 case and appropriate. 9 5. Plaintiff’s request for fees will not be reduced by 1.0 hours that counsel 10 spent drafting his pro hac vice application, and by 0.1 hours that counsel spent 11 communicating with each other about the assignment of the undersigned as the judge on 12 the case. These efforts were related to the case. 13 6. Plaintiff’s request for fees will not be reduced by 1.2 hours that counsel 14 spent on general inter-office communications. These efforts were related to the case. 15 7. Plaintiff’s requested rate of $500 per hour is reasonable for this ERISA 16 matter. The declaration of Mel Crawford, an attorney in the Western District of 17 Washington, and evidence of four recent attorney-fee awards in ERISA matters, two for 18 Mr. Crawford and two for Christopher Roy, support an amount of $500. This is precisely 19 the type of evidence considered when determining the reasonable hourly rate. Welch v. 20 Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2007). As his declaration, docket 21 no. 51-1, demonstrates, plaintiff’s lead counsel, Robert Rosati, has more legal experience 22 23 ORDER - 2 1 than Mr. Crawford and far more legal and ERISA experience than Mr. Roy. Rosati’s 2 reasonable rate in this district is $500 per hour. 3 8. Plaintiff’s request for a fee enhancement is DENIED. Plaintiff has failed to 4 establish that exceptional circumstances entitle her to an attorneys’ fees enhancement or 5 that the lodestar amount is unreasonably low. 6 9. Plaintiff is hereby awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of 7 $79,800, which includes the amount set forth in Rosati’s supplemental declaration, 8 docket no. 54, but not the amount set forth in Crawford’s supplemental declaration, 9 docket no. 55. 10 10. Plaintiff is awarded costs in the amount of $1,876.66. These costs were 11 incurred and are reasonable. See Rosati Decl., docket no. 51-1, ¶ 14; Crawford Decl., 12 docket no. 51-2, ¶ 12. 13 11. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, to send a copy of this Order 14 and the Judgment to all counsel of record, and to CLOSE this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated this 1st day of June, 2018. 17 A 18 19 Thomas S. Zilly United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 3

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?