Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Tacoma Therapy, Inc et al

Filing 208

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 200 Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al, ,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C13-5214RBL
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

v.
TACOMA THERAPY, INC., et al,
Defendants.

14
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
15
[Dkt. #200]. The Court has reviewed the material filed for and against the motion. Allstate is
16
the prevailing party for purposes of the awarding of attorneys’ fees and other costs pursuant to 18
17
U.S.C. § 1964(c), Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 9A.82.100, and RCW 19.86.090.
18
Following a bench trial the Court awarded actual damages to Allstate in the amount of $150,000,
19
trebled under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) to $450,000. In the follow20
up motion, Allstate asks that it be awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $965,356.50 and costs
21
in the amount of $272,035.80 for a sum total of $1,237,392.30. For the following reasons, the
22
Court grants Allstate’s motion for a much smaller amount than requested.
23
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS - 1

1 A. Attorneys’ Fee Standard.
2

The first step in determining reasonable fees is to calculate the lodestar figure, by taking

3 the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and multiplying it by the appropriate
4 hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The Court should exclude
5 over-staffed, redundant, or unnecessary time. Id. at 434. The Court must also consider the extent
”
6 of Plaintiffs’ success, as that is a“crucial factor in determining an appropriate award. Id. at 440.
7

No one criticizes Plaintiffs’ counsels’ hourly rate. No one questions counsels’ fervor and

8 sincerity in bringing down the defendants. However, the results do not justify the fee/costs
9 application. The hours spent achieving the overall result is not fairly or reasonably attributed to
10 Defendant Jacobs, who largely conceded the critical facts and did not oppose the summary
11 judgment on liability. Admittedly, plaintiffs received a settlement just over $1 million from
12 several settling defendants. Added to this sum is the judgment of $150,000, trebled to $450,000.
13 The total return is approximately $1.5 million. The fee/cost petition is in the amount of
14 approximately $1.25 million. The application is disproportionate to recovery achieved. Without
15 further comment, the Court awards attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $250,000. Pre16 judgment interest on the judgment is not allowed.
17

Dated this 4th day of January, 2017.

19

A

20

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

18

21
22
23
24
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS - 2