Cockrum et al v. C H Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc et al

Filing 30

ORDER on Attorneys' Fees. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees without prejudice. Plaintiffs may resubmit declarations from counsel that provide adequate documentation of the time spent on the issue of remand and as well as the reasonableness of the hourly rates for the Court to consider. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (SB)

Case 2:22-cv-01515-MJP Document 30 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

COCKRUM et al.,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-1515
ORDER ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES

v.
C H MURPHY/CLARK-ULLMAN
INC. et al.,
Defendant.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 19) and

18

the Court’s Order Remanding the Case (Dkt. No. 26). The Court granted the Motion, remanded

19

this matter, and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs subject to further information from Plaintiffs

20

in support of that request. Plaintiffs have submitted declarations from counsel attesting to the

21

time spent litigating the remand issue and the requested hourly rates. (Declarations of Justin

22

Olson and Matthew P. Bergman (Dkt. Nos. 27, 28).) Olson’s Declaration states that he spent

23

thirteen hours on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand and six hours on the Reply. (Olson Decl. at 2-3.)

24
ORDER ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES - 1

Case 2:22-cv-01515-MJP Document 30 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3

1

Bergman’s Declaration claims he spent seven and a half hours total on the issue of remand.

2

(Bergman Decl. at 2-3.)

3

In determining what attorneys’ fees are reasonable in a particular case, the court arrives at

4

the “lodestar amount,” that is, multiplying the number of hours reasonable expended by a

5

reasonable hourly rate. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). In

6

deciding the number of hours “reasonably expended,” the Court considers whether the time spent

7

on the matter was “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley v. Eckhart, 461

8

U.S. 424, 434 (1983). The request attorney “should submit evidence supporting the hours

9

worked and rates claimed” to enable this determination. Id. at 433. “Illegible, abbreviated time

10

records, submitted in a form not reasonably capable of evaluation, do not satisfy the burden of

11

submitted detailed time records justifying the hours claimed. Stewart v. Gates, 987 F.2d 1450,

12

1453 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

13

Here, the declarations do not provide documentation of the hours spent litigating the

14

issue. Each attorney simply states how long they spent working on each brief. This is

15

insufficient. Though Olson provided a copy of Plaintiff’s Bill of Attorney’s Fees and Costs for a

16

previous case, this is irrelevant to the hours spent in this case. And any prior ruling by the Court

17

is not dispositive of the Court’s outcome in this case. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’

18

request for attorneys’ fees without prejudice. Plaintiffs may resubmit declarations from counsel

19

that provide adequate documentation of the time spent on the issue of remand and as well as the

20

reasonableness of the hourly rates for the Court to consider.

21

//

22

//

23

//

24
ORDER ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES - 2

Case 2:22-cv-01515-MJP Document 30 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3

1

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

2

Dated January 17, 2023.

3

A

4

Marsha J. Pechman
United States Senior District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES - 3