Beach et al v. J.D. Lumber, Inc. et al, No. 2:2008cv00416 - Document 130 (D. Idaho 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: Attorney Fees and Order for Entry of Judgment, re 120 MOTION for Attorney Fees & Costs filed by Plaintiffs. The Clerk shall enter this Order, enter judgment for the Plaintiffs in the amountof $294,663 plus Plaintiffs' statutory costs, distribute this Order to counsel, and close the file. Signed by Judge Justin L. Quackenbush.(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Beach et al v. J.D. Lumber, Inc. et al Doc. 130 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF IDAHO 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CLAY BEACH, et al, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) JD LUMBER, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) No. CV-08-416-JLQ MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: ATTORNEY FEES AND ORDER FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 12 Following trial of the above-entitled matter to the court, the findings for the 13 Plaintiffs, and the determination by the court that the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover 14 reasonable attorney fees, the parties have submitted numerous affidavits and documents 15 concerning the amount of reasonable attorneys fees that should be awarded to the 16 Plaintiffs. Briefing was completed on September 9, 2010 and the matter was deemed 17 submitted to the court on that date. 18 At the conclusion of the bench trial of this matter the court cited the parties to that 19 portion of Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in Hensley v. Ekerhart, 461 U. S. 424, 433 20 (1983) which cautioned that the determination of the amount of an award of a reasonable 21 attorney fee should not become a “second trial.” The court suggested to counsel that 22 they should attempt to agree on the reasonable amount of Plaintiffs’ attorney fees. While 23 this court is satisfied that counsel for all parties have observed the admonition of Justice 24 Powell and this court, there was no suggestion of negotiation or agreement on the 25 attorney fee issue. A substantial volume of materials and objections have been submitted 26 to the court for its consideration and decision. 27 28 ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 While the total award to the lumber mill worker Plaintiffs is somewhat less than 2 $100,000 plus interest, the full and complete litigation of the Plaintiffs’ Worker 3 Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ( WARN), 29 U.S.C. § 210, claims were 4 not only of import to each of the 26 individual mill workers terminated from their jobs 5 in violation of the WARN Act, but the claims were likewise an important matter of 6 public policy in enforcing the law which protects workers from mass layoffs without 7 proper forewarning. The Defendant fully and completely defended this matter from the 8 start to the finish of the matter and rejected what now appears, in hindsight, to have been 9 reasonable efforts by the Plaintiffs to resolve this matter without the time and expense 10 of necessary pretrial discovery, motions, and trial. The litigation posture of the losing 11 party is a matter that the court may consider in determining the reasonableness of the 12 number of hours expended by counsel for the prevailing party. 13 As directed and guided by Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, and Kerr v. Screen Extras 14 Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975), the court must first determine the “lodestar” 15 amount of fees by determining the reasonable number of hours expended multiplied by 16 the reasonable hourly rate for the attorney. 17 18 19 REASONABLE HOURS EXPENDED BY PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS The Plaintiffs and their attorneys claim the following hours as being reasonably expended in the preparation, pretrial, and trial phases of this case: 22 Mel Crawford: David Whedbee Robert Huntley Julie Gambino (paralegal) La Rond Baker (law student) 23 The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs’ claimed hours are unreasonable, 24 particularly in view of the defense expenditure of only 463.1 billable hours. The court 25 notes, however, that in addition to the 463.1 hours of attorney time, the Defendant was 26 billed for an additional 130.3 hours of paralegal time. This reference to time spent by 27 the defense is an appropriate one in view of this court’s suggestion at the conclusion of 28 ORDER - 2 20 21 361.9 hours 401.4 hours 47.4 hours 54.1 hours 6.8 hours 1 the trial that some courts look at the hours billed by both sides of a matter in determining 2 if the claimed hours by the successful party appear to be unreasonable. However, in this 3 case, the prevailing parties are the Plaintiffs and those Plaintiffs had the burden of proof 4 in this case. The Plaintiffs were required to pursue formal pretrial discovery procedures 5 and motions, rather than having the relevant information furnished without demand as 6 is the intent of F. R. Civ. P. 26. The court determines that the fact that the defense 7 attorneys expended a less amount of time than the Plaintiffs’ attorneys is not a valid 8 basis, in this case, for reducing the Plaintiff’s hours. 9 The Defendant also contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to reduce the time spent 10 by their attorneys on claims presented in the complaints that were dismissed, either 11 voluntarily or by the court on summary judgement citing McCown v. City of Fontana, 12 565 F. 3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009). However, this court finds that the claims against 13 the principal owner of JD Lumber, Inc., Jeff Weimer, and the claims against JD Lumber 14 that were dismissed prior to trial, involved the same facts and circumstances upon which 15 the Plaintiffs’ successful WARN claims were based. For that reason, the court rejects 16 the suggestion that the Plaintiffs hours should be reduced because of the dismissed 17 claims. 18 The Defendant next contends there was duplication by Mr. Crawford and Mr. 19 Whedbee in various pretrial proceedings as set forth on page 8 and 9 of the Defendant’s 20 Response To Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorney Fees. (C. R. 126). The court has reviewed 21 that claim and the billings of Mr. Crawford and Mr. Whedbee and agrees with the 22 defense contentions in part. The court finds that the hours claimed by Mr. Crawford 23 should be reduced by 31.1 hours and those billed by Mr. Whedbee should be reduced by 24 26 hours. 25 The JD Lumber, Inc., also contends that the billings of Messrs. Crawford and 26 Whedbee of 21.5 hours overstates the actual time spent in trial. The court agrees and 27 reduces the reasonable hours for trial time to 12.5 hours. 28 ORDER - 3 1 Finally, the defense challenges the association by the Plaintiffs of attorney Robert 2 Huntley of Boise, Idaho arguing that the Plaintiffs should have associated a Coeur d’ 3 Alene, Idaho attorney rather than one in Boise. While this is a north Idaho case and was 4 tried in Coeur d’Alene, the entire state of Idaho is one federal district and the judge 5 originally assigned this matter, Judge Lodge, has his chambers in Boise. The court also 6 observes that the Defendant did not hire a north Idaho law firm to defend it, but rather 7 retained and was represented throughout by a Boise law firm. Mr. Huntley’s appearance 8 and attendance were required by Idaho Local Rule 83.4(e) which requires that an 9 attorney admitted in the District of Idaho and maintaining an office in the District, be 10 associated by pro hac vice counsel. The local attorney is required be named on and sign 11 all pleadings and personally appear on “all matters heard and tried.” The court finds Mr. 12 Huntley’s billed time of 47.4 hours to be reasonable. 13 Based on the court’s review of all the pleadings filed and reviewed by the court 14 in connection with the hours claimed by the Plaintiffs, the court finds the following to 15 be the reasonable hours expended by Plaintiff’s attorneys: 16 17 18 Mel Crawford David Whedbee Robert Huntley Julie Gambino (paralegal) La Rond Baker (law student) 321.8 hours 366.4 hours 47.4 hours 54.1hours 6.8 hours REASONABLE HOURLY RATES 19 20 Plaintiffs seek an hourly rate for attorney Mel Crawford of $350 per hour and for 21 David Whedbee of $225 per hour. Mr. Crawford and Mr. Whedbee are both members 22 of a respected Seattle, Washington law firm, MacDonald, Hoague, & Bayless. Mr. 23 Crawford has been a member of that firm since 1993 and is presently the managing 24 partner. Mr. Whedbee has been an associate with the MacDonald firm since his 25 graduation from the University of Washington law school in 2005. Mr. Crawford’s 26 Seattle billing rate which he seeks in this case is $350/hour and Mr. Whedbee’s billing 27 rate is $225/hour in the Seattle area. However, the court determines that the reasonable 28 ORDER - 4 1 hourly rate for these attorneys should be based upon reasonable rates in the District of 2 Idaho, where this action was commenced, prosecuted, and tried. The court rejects the 3 Defendant’s contentions that it should apply the northern Idaho rates which it claims are 4 less than the Boise-southern Idaho rate. The court finds that a reasonable District of 5 Idaho hourly rate for the time spent by Mr. Crawford is $275/hour and for Mr. Whedbee 6 $200/hour. The reasonable hourly rate for attorney Robert Huntley is also determined to 7 be $275/hour. The distinguished career and experience of Mr. Huntley speaks for itself 8 and could well justify a higher hourly rate. However, in its discretion the court sets Mr. 9 Huntley’s hourly rate at that set for Mr. Crawford. The reasonable hourly rate for the 10 paralegal Julie Gambino is found to be $75/hour and for the recent law school graduate 11 La Rond Baker $100/hour. These rates take into consideration the fact that the 12 Plaintiffs’ attorneys have expended their time over a period in excess of two years 13 without receiving any compensation therefor. The fact that the hourly rates awarded to 14 Plaintiffs’ counsel is somewhat higher than that billed by the attorneys for the Defendant 15 does not adversely reflect upon the quality of legal skills evidenced by Messrs. Brian 16 Julian and Stephen Adams. These attorneys fully and competently represented the 17 Defendant JD Lumber, Inc., and the finding for the Plaintiffs herein was based strictly 18 on the court’s determinations of the facts and not on any inadequate legal representation 19 of the Defendant. COMPUTATION OF ATTORNEY FEES AWARDED 20 21 22 23 24 25 Based upon the foregoing, the court determines the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney fees in the amount of $179,547, computed as follows: Mel Crawford David Whedbee Robert Huntley Julie Gambino (paralegal) La Rond Baker (law graduate) 26 27 28 ORDER - 5 Total $ 88,495 $ 73,280 $ 13,035 $ 4,057 $ 680 $179,547 NON-TAXABLE EXPENSES 1 2 The Plaintiffs also seek to recover their attorneys’ expenses not included in their 3 statutory cost bill in the amount of $ 9,361.36. The Defendant asserts that such non- 4 taxable costs, primarily for travel and housing, should not be included in an award of 5 reasonable attorney fees under the WARN statute. However, in this case, the court finds 6 that the claimed non-taxable expenses were reasonably and necessarily expended in the 7 prosecution of this action subject to reduction in the amount of $1,246.69 representing 8 duplicative travel expenses for Mr. Crawford and Mr. Whedbee. The court rejects the 9 Defendant’s challenges to the travel and housing expenses of Mr. Huntley since Idaho 10 Local Rule 83.4(e) required his attendance at all court proceedings. Mr. Huntley 11 traveled from Boise to Coeur d’ Alene as did both of the Defendant’s attorneys. The 12 court finds the Plaintiffs should be compensated from their attorneys’ Non-Taxable 13 Expenses in the amount of $8,114.67. INTEREST COMPUTATION 14 15 To the credit of the parties and their attorneys they did stipulate to the amount of 16 lost wages suffered by the Plaintiffs if the Plaintiffs prevailed that being $86,220. (See 17 Clerk’s Record 68). The WARN Act is silent as to the award of interest on lost wages. 18 Therefore the court applies the law of the forum state, in this case the state of Idaho. 19 Idaho Code § 28-22-104 provides for prejudgment interest on “money after the same 20 become due” at the rate of 12 % per annum, which is not to be compounded. The court 21 therefore determines that the Plaintiffs are entitled to interest on their unpaid wages from 22 October 3, 2008, the date of the plant closing, at $28.35/day to the date of this Order and 23 the entry of judgment in the total amount of $20,871. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 24 25 26 The Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against the Defendant JD Lumber, Inc. in the amount of $ 294,663 composed of the following: 27 28 ORDER - 6 3 Lost Wages Interest on Lost Wages Non-taxable Expenses Attorney Fees Total judgment to be entered 4 The Clerk shall enter this Order, enter judgment for the Plaintiffs in the amount 5 of $294,663 plus Plaintiffs’ statutory costs, distribute this Order to counsel, and close the 6 file. 1 2 7 Dated this 5th day of October, 2010. s/ Justin L. Quackenbush JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 $ 86,220 $ 20,781 $ 8,115 $ 179,546 $ 294,663 ORDER - 7
]]>
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.
