Rivard-Crook et al v. Accelerated Payment Technologies, Inc.

Filing 134

ORDER that, in the event the District Judge affirms this Courts 106 Order, Defendant Accelerated Payment Technologies, Inc. shall pay the Rivard-Crook Plaintiffs attorneys fees in the amount of $8,940.00 within 14 days after the District Judg es order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the District Judge affirms this Courts 106 Order, Defendant Accelerated Payment Technologies, Inc. shall pay Consolidated Plaintiffs attorneys fees in the amount of $1,854.00 within 14 days after the District Judges order. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 02/21/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BARBARA RIVARD-CROOK; et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) ACCELERATED PAYMENT TECHNOLOGIES, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:10-cv-02215-MMD-GWF Consolidated with: 2:11-cv-00986-MMD-GWF 2:12-cv-00003-MMD-GWF 2:12-cv-00776-MMD-GWF ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Rivard-Crook Plaintiffs’ Statement of Attorneys’ 14 Fees (#116) and Consolidated Plaintiffs’ Statement of Attorneys’ Fees (#117), both filed on 15 January 22, 2013. Defendant Accelerated Payment Technologies, Inc. (“APT”) filed a Response 16 (#130) on February 8, 2013. The Rivard-Crook Plaintiffs filed a Reply (#132) on February 18, 17 2013. The Consolidated Plaintiffs filed a Joinder (#133) to the Reply (#132) on February 19, 2013. 18 This Court awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees under Rule 37 for APT’s failure to provide 19 certain discovery. See January 8, 2013 Order, Doc. #106 at 11:9-24. Specifically, the Rivard- 20 Crook Plaintiffs filed a Motion (#59) seeking (1) production of attorneys-eyes-only listings of 21 certain APT customers, (2) production of un-redacted responsive documents, and (3) sanctions for 22 APT’s alleged intentional suppression of the “Knapp Memorandum.” Consolidated Plaintiffs filed 23 a Joinder (#61) to Motion (#59). The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion (#59) as to (1) and (2), 24 denied it as to (3), and awarded Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees accordingly. Id. APT filed Objections 25 (#107) to the Order (#106), which are currently pending before the District Judge. 26 27 28 DISCUSSION Reasonable attorney fees must “be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community,” considering the fees charged by “lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, 1 experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-96 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541 (1984). 2 Courts typically use a two-step process when determining fee awards. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 3 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). First, the Court must calculate the lodestar amount “by taking 4 the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and multiplying it by a reasonable 5 hourly rate.” Id. Furthermore, other factors should be taken into consideration such as special 6 skill, experience of counsel, and the results obtained. Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 7 364 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1996). “The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence supporting 8 the hours worked and rates claimed,” and “[w]here the documentation of hours is inadequate, the 9 district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). 10 Second, the Court “may adjust the lodestar, [only on rare and exceptional occasions], upward or 11 downward using a multiplier based on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation of the 12 lodestar.” Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000). 13 a. 14 Craig Marquiz, counsel for the Rivard-Cook Plaintiffs, is a sole practitioner with 18 years Rivard-Cook Plaintiffs 15 of experience. The Court finds an hourly fee commensurate with Mr. Marquiz’s skill, experience, 16 and reputation is $300.00. Upon consideration of Mr. Marquiz’s statement of fees (#116) and the 17 reasonable time required to compose a motion to compel under the circumstances, the Court will 18 award Mr. Marquiz attorneys’ fees for 29.8 hours. Mr. Marquiz is entitled to 11.8 hours for 19 drafting the Motion to Compel (#59), and 16.8 hours for evaluating APT’s Response (#62), drafting 20 the Reply (#67), and drafting Motion (#76) for leave to file a supplement to his Reply. The Court 21 will award fees for 1.2 hours for attending the November 14, 2012 hearing. 22 b. 23 Three attorneys from the firm representing Consolidated Plaintiffs aided in the subject Consolidated Plaintiffs 24 Motion (#59), partners Neil Durrant and Lance Johns, and associate Robert Peterson. Mr. Peterson 25 argues that his reasonable hourly rate is $250.00, and that the partners’ reasonable hourly rate is 26 $295.00. Considering that Consolidated Plaintiffs filed Joinders (#61, #70) to the Motion to 27 Compel (#59) and the Reply (#67), the Court will award them attorneys’ fees for 4 hours at the 28 associate rate for contributing to the Motion (#59) and filing their Joinder (#61). Consolidated 2 1 Plaintiffs are entitled to 2 hours at the associate rate for strategizing with Mr. Marquiz regarding the 2 Reply (#67). The Court will also award fees for 1.2 hours for Mr. Durrant’s attendance at the 3 November 14, 2012 hearing. Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in the event the District Judge affirms this Court’s Order 5 (#106), Defendant Accelerated Payment Technologies, Inc. shall pay the Rivard-Crook Plaintiffs’ 6 attorneys’ fees in the amount of $8,940.00 within 14 days after the District Judge’s order. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the event the District Judge affirms this Court’s 8 Order (#106), Defendant Accelerated Payment Technologies, Inc. shall pay Consolidated Plaintiffs’ 9 attorneys’ fees in the amount of $1,854.00 within 14 days after the District Judge’s order. 10 DATED this 21st day of February, 2013. 11 12 13 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?