Potter v. Biggs et al
Filing
58
ORDER: Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fee Award 51 is granted in the amount of $27,291.36. Signed on January 8, 2009 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (cp)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MARK POTTER, in his capacity as trustee of various
ORDER Civ. No. 07-244-AA
irrevocable trusts, Plaintiff,
STEVEN BIGGS, THOMAS CROSSWHITE, and UNIQUE SETTLEMENTS, LLC, a foreign corporation, Defendants.
AIKEN, Judge :
Defendants' motion for attorney fee award is granted.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P . 54 (d)(2) , defendants, as the prevailing party, may seek recovery of its attorney fees incurred in defending against an action brought in this court. Further, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 (f), a court may award attorney fees against a non-complying party as or in addition to any sanction deemed appropriate by the court. Defendants are the prevailing party pursuant to a judgment of dismissal entered in this case on November 3, 2008. That judgment resulted from
plaintiff's failure to lodge a pretrial order as required by this
-
ORDER
court, refusal to participate in preparation of a pretrial order, or to otherwise take any steps required of him by Fed. R. Civ. P.
16.
Here, plaintiff
filed
suit
against
defendants
Biggs,
Crosswhite and Unique Settlement, LLC.
Defendants defended
against plaintiff's claims, initially on jurisdictional grounds, requiring several separate rounds of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 motions. Plaintiff then subsequently settled with defendant Crosswhite and dismissed him from this action. After that plaintiff failed to communicate with defense counsel or the court, and refused to participate in or provide any discovery. Ultimately, this
failure extended to plaintiff's failure to participate in preparing a pretrial order, and eventually resulted in dismissal of this matter in its entirety. A determination of a reasonable attorney's fee begins with the "lodestar, which is the "number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens7 Council for Clean Air,
478 U.S. 546, 563-64 (1986).
Defendants carry the burden of factors considered to determine
proving the lodestar.
a. The
the lodestar figure include: (I) the time and labor required; (2)
the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill required;
(5)
(4)
the preclusion of other employment by the attorney; fee; ( 6 ) whether the fee is fixed or
the
customary
contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys, (10)
the ltundesirabilityll the case; (11) the nature and length of of
2 - ORDER
the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in
similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. l975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 951 (1976). The court may adjust the lodestar: (1) downward when there is only partial or limited success, Henslev v. Eckerhaxt, 461
U.S. 424, 435 (1983) or (2) upward in llrarell ; and "exceptional"
cases.
Delaware at 565.
However, there is a strong presumption
that the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee. Miller v. Los Anseles Countv Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 621 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, defendants request a total fee award of $27,291.36After considering defendantst motion affidavit containing
for fees, defendants1
and supporting defendants'
supporting
appropriate
documentation of
defendants' fee
request, and
Supplemental Affidavit filed at the court's request, I find both the hourly rates and the number of hours expended on the litigation reasonable.
Overall, the attorney fees incurred by
defendants are reasonable for the services rendered and the results obtained.
CONCLUSION
Defendants7 motion for attorney fee award granted in the amount of $27,291.36.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
(doc. 51) is
Dated this
day of January 2009.
Ann A i k e n United States District Judge
ORDER
c,
]]>
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?
