George v. Jackson, No. 2:2018cv01769 - Document 100 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 95 Omnibus Motion. Plaintiff's claim for negligence is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's request for $46,270.50 in attorneys' fees and $1,926.68 in costs is GRANTED. The Court's prior imposition of sanctions is vacated and Plaintiff's request for sanctions in the amount of $10,100.00 is DENIED. The Court's Judgment on February 21, 2020 is VACATED and the Court will publish a superseding judgment reflecting the foregoing and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. (TH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
te. RCW § 74.34.130(5). Defendant does not contest the applicability of attorneys’ fees and costs under the AVAA. See generally Dkt. No. 98. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ 17 18 19 fees totaling $46,270.50 and costs totaling $1,926.68 relying on Defendant’s violation of the AVAA. Dkt. No. 95 at 2–4. Defendant challenges the amount of both the fees and the costs. 20 Attorneys’ fees are calculated under the lodestar method. Sierra Club v. BNSF Ry. Co., 21 276 F. Supp. 3d 1067, 1072 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (citing Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 22 23 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also MKB Constructors v. Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1078, 1085 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (“[t]he lodestar method is the default principle for fee calculation 24 25 in Washington”) (internal quotations removed). The lodestar figure is determined by multiplying 3 Case 2:18-cv-01769-BJR Document 100 Filed 05/07/20 Page 4 of 6 1 2 the number of hours reasonably spent on litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftbank, Frankfurt AM Main v. Choice Cash Advance, LLC, 918 F. 3 Supp. 2d 1156, 1169 (W.D. Wash. 2013); see also MKB Constructors, 83 F. Supp. 3d at 1085–86. 4 Defendant does not contest Plaintiff’s hourly rates. See generally Dkt. No. 98. 5 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration from her attorney with two attached exhibits attesting 6 to the fees and costs expended in prosecuting this matter. Dkt. No. 96. In total, Plaintiff’s counsel 7 claims to have expended 242.60 attorney and support staff hours. Dkt. No. 96 at ¶ 11. Of this, he 8 9 discounts 25.5 hours as already awarded pursuant to the previous judgment. Dkt. No. 56. He also 10 discounts 21 hours spent performing “administrative tasks, researching unsuccessful legal 11 avenues, and performing tasks for which the client was not billed.” Dkt. No. 96 at ¶ 11. The 12 remaining 196.1 hours are detailed in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration and total $46,270.50. Dkt. No. 13 96-1. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel claims $1,926.68 in costs, as detailed in Exhibit 2 to the 14 15 Declaration. Dkt. No. 96-2. Defendant objects to two specific aspects of Plaintiff’s calculations. Dkt. No. 98 at 3–5. 16 17 First, she claims that Plaintiff’s claimed 31.9 hours to complete her motion for partial summary 18 judgement is overstated and includes duplicative entries. Defendant does not point to any specific 19 entries which she claims are overstated or duplicative. 20 descriptions of her costs in Exhibit 2 are not sufficiently detailed. Based on these arguments, 21 Defendant asks the Court to reduce Plaintiff’s award, although she does not say by how much, or 22 Second, she argues that Plaintiff’s provide a measure for the Court to determine what amount of a reduction would be appropriate. 23 24 25 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s counsel’s submission of his hours and being familiar with the record in this case, the Court finds $46,270.50 in fees to be reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsels’ efforts 4 Case 2:18-cv-01769-BJR Document 100 Filed 05/07/20 Page 5 of 6 1 2 in pursuant of partial summary judgment were neither overstated or duplicative. Rather, Plaintiff’s counsel has demonstrated how the hours were necessary to organize disorderly and incomplete 3 financial records and compose a motion that effectively demonstrated a series of financial 4 transactions between multiple accounts. Dkt. No. 99 at 3–4. 5 6 Further, Plaintiff’s counsel explains in his reply brief that the costs found in Exhibit 2 represent a monthly billed fee for access to Lexis Nexus necessary to research the many issues that 7 arose in this case. Id. at 4. The Court finds these costs reasonable as well. 8 9 10 B. Sanctions Based on Defendant’s failure to produce an accounting and the Court’s daily sanctions, 11 Plaintiff asks the Court to assess $10,100.00 in sanctions for Defendant’s 101 days of non- 12 compliance with the Court’s order (September 19, 2019 to November 27, 2019 and February 22, 13 2020 to March 25, 2020). Dkt. No. 95 at 4–5; see also Dkt. No. 95-1 (including $10,100.00 in her 14 15 calculation of the total judgment in the Appendix A table). While the Court does not condone Defendant’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders 16 17 in this matter, the Court finds that, in light of the amount of the resulting judgment in this case and 18 Defendant’s age and financial condition, imposing a sanction award would be excessive. 19 Therefore, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court will not grant the sanction amount Plaintiff 20 requests. 21 22 23 C. Judgment Based on the foregoing, the Court will enter a superseding judgment reflecting the awards made herein. Dkt. No. 95 at 5. The Court will vacate its previous Judgment of February 21, 2020. 24 25 Dkt. No. 89. The superseding judgment shall include $170,783.66 in unsatisfied damages, 5 Case 2:18-cv-01769-BJR Document 100 Filed 05/07/20 Page 6 of 6 1 2 $46,270.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,926.68 in costs, and $5,868.00 from the previously entered, now-vacated Judgment of February 21, 2020. IV. 3 4 5 6 7 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motion, Dkt. No. 95, and ORDERS as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s claim for negligence is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; 2. Plaintiff’s request for $46,270.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,926.68 in costs is 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 GRANTED; 3. The Court’s prior imposition of sanctions is vacated and Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $10,100.00 is DENIED; 4. The Court’s Judgment on February 21, 2020 is VACATED and the Court will publish a superseding judgment reflecting the foregoing; and 5. This case is DISMISSED. 15 16 17 DATED this 5th day of May, 2020. 18 _______________________________ BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
