Castell v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
92
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES; DENYING 91 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND TERMINATING 88 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/8/2012. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
For the Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
United States District Court
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
Case No. 09-cv-01593-LHK
JAYCE CASTELL,
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES;
DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; AND
TERMINATING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
17
18
19
On March 22, 2012, this Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for contempt sanctions,
20
concluding that Defendants had violated its October 2010 judgment by failing to process Plaintiff’s
21
“any occupation” claim in a timely fashion. ECF No. 84. While it denied Plaintiff’s request for
22
interest on benefits accruing from July 2007 through December 2011, the Court awarded reasonable
23
attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in litigating the motion for contempt sanctions. Id. at
24
10-11. The Court directed Plaintiff to submit a proposed order “supported by an affidavit of counsel
25
and any necessary documents supporting a narrow and reasonable request for attorneys’ fees and
26
costs.” Id. at 11.
27
28
Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted an affidavit representing that he spent 40.25 hours litigating
the motion for contempt sanctions, stating that he charges $350 per hour, and seeking an award of
Case No. 09-cv-01593-LHK
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES ETC.
1
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $14,087. Defendants object to the affidavit, asserting inter alia that
2
counsel spent an excessive amount of time preparing a five page motion, and that counsel’s practice
3
of billing in quarter-hour increments inflated the fee bill. The Court agrees with Defendants that the
4
time spent on preparing the motion is excessive. The motion was not complicated. Almost one
5
entire page of the five-page brief consisted of a block quotation from the Plan. After reviewing
6
counsel’s affidavit in conjunction with the record, the Court concludes that $10,000 is the upper
7
limit of attorneys’ fees reasonably expended in litigating the motion for contempt sanctions.
8
Accordingly, the Court will award attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,000.
Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of interest as a
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
component of the contempt sanction, as well as a belated motion for leave to file a motion for
11
reconsideration. 1 Plaintiff’s motion for leave does not satisfy the requirements set forth in the
12
Court’s Civil Local Rules. He has not demonstrated the existence of a material difference in fact or
13
law, the emergence of new facts or law, or a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts
14
or law that were presented in connection with his motion for contempt sanctions. See Civ. L.R. 7-
15
9(b). Plaintiff seeks interest on “own occupation” benefits that accrued between 2007 and 2011. As
16
explained in the Court’s order, Defendants’ failure to pay benefits accruing before issuance of the
17
October 2010 judgment did not constitute contempt of that judgment. See ECF No. 84 at 10.
18
Moreover, Defendants’ obligation to begin reviewing Plaintiff’s “any occupation” claim pursuant to
19
the remand did not arise until Plaintiff submitted his medical records on September 30, 2011. Id.
20
Given that Defendants’ contumacy did not occur until late 2011, an award of interest on benefits
21
running from 2007 is unwarranted. 2 Id.
In light of its disposition of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration,
22
23
the Court will terminate Plaintiff’s unauthorized motion for reconsideration.
24
25
1
26
Although the Civil Local Rules require a party to seek leave of court before filing a motion for
reconsideration, see Civ. L. R. 7-9(a), Plaintiff filed a substantive motion for reconsideration and
then belatedly sought leave of court after Defendants pointed out the procedural deficiency.
27
2
28
Plaintiff cites a number of cases addressing the propriety of awarding interest as part of a civil
judgment. None of the cases arose in the context of a motion for contempt sanctions, and none of
them informs this Court’s analysis with respect to the appropriate sanction for Defendants’ violation
of its October 2010 judgment.
2
Case No. 09-cv-01593-LHK
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES ETC.
ORDER
1
2
(1) Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $10,000, to be
3
paid by Defendants within ten days after the filing of this Order;
4
(2) Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED; and
5
(3) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is TERMINATED.
6
7
Dated: August 8, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
8
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 09-cv-01593-LHK
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES ETC.
]]>
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?
