Williams-Degree et al v. Washington Realty Group LLC et al

Filing 51

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting in part and denying in part 45 Motion for Award of Sanctions.(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 STEPHANIE WILLIAMS-DEGREE and FREDERICK L. DEGREE, 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 WASHINGTON REALTY GROUP, 12 LLC, and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 13 Defendants. 14 CASE NO. C12-6053 BHS ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF SANCTIONS 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Washington Realty Group’s 16 (“WRG”) motion for an award of sanctions (Dkt. 45). 17 On December 17, 2013, Plaintiff Stephanie Williams-Degree and Frederick 18 Degree (“Degrees”) moved for voluntary dismissal. Dkt. 38. Because the motion was 19 filed so close to trial, the Court granted the motion on the condition that the Degrees pay 20 sanctions to WRG. Dkt. 41. On January 30, 2014, WRG filed the instant motion 21 requesting that the Court award $10,044.00 in sanctions for categories of work that may 22 ORDER - 1 1 not be used in subsequent state court litigation. Dkt. 46, ¶¶ 15–16. On February 10, 2 2014, the Degrees responded. Dkt. 47. On February 14, 2014, WRG replied. Dkt. 48. 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows plaintiffs, pursuant to an order of 4 the court, and subject to any terms and conditions the court deems proper, to dismiss an 5 action without prejudice at any time. In order to protect the defendant’s interest in having 6 to relitigate the matter, the court may condition “the dismissal without prejudice upon the 7 payment of appropriate costs and attorney fees.” Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S., 100 F.3d 8 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). Defendant, however, “should only be awarded attorney fees for 9 work which cannot be used in any future litigation of these claims.” Id. (citing Koch v. 10 Hankins, 8 F.3d 650, 652 (9th Cir.1993)). 11 In this case, WRG has provided a list of work that its attorneys have preformed 12 that it claims may not be used in any subsequent state court litigation. The Degrees fail 13 to cite any authority in their favor and fail to scrutinize any of WRG’s billing records. 14 See Dkt. 47. The Court has reviewed the billing records and agrees with WRG in part 15 and disagrees with WRG in part as to what may be used in subsequent litigation. For 16 example, WRG requests reimbursement for drafting and reviewing initial disclosures and 17 the joint status report. While these activities may be unique to federal court, it would 18 definitely be helpful if the Degrees refiled the matter in state court. On the other hand, 19 work performed on pre-trial matters, the voluntary dismissal issues, and this instant 20 motion will not be useful in a subsequent action. This work appears to occur after 21 November 2013. See Dkt. 46-1 at 22–46. The records, however, are heavily redacted 22 and there is no easy way to calculate the exact total. Although it appears that WRG ORDER - 2 1 should be compensated for the majority of its attorneys’ claimed hours, the Court will 2 afford the Degrees some lienency and simply award half of WRG’s requested amount. 3 Therefore, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part WRG’s motion and awards 4 WRG $5022.00 in sanctions. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated this 24th day of February, 2014. A 7 8 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?