IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
HEATHER ARAGON, Civ. No. 1:22-cv-00935-CL Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER Vv.
RISE LAW GROUP INC. ET AL. Defendants.
CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. ‘
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees (#75). The Court previously issued an Order (#60) granting Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (#44) due to an unprepared Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court also awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff now moves to collect the fees and costs. For the reasons below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. .
LEGAL STANDARD The Ninth Circuit has adopted the “lodestar” method for calculating attorney fees. Camacho vy. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). That calculation multiplies a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended in the litigation. ‘Hensley Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Pennsylvania y. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean □ Air, 478 U.S. 546, 564 (1986). The court must then decide whether to enhance or reduce the □
lodestar figure by evaluating several factors. Moreno vy. City of Sacremento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir, 2008). The court may adjust the lodestar to account for factors such as: (1) the time and labor.
_ tequired; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time □ limitations imposed by the client ot the circumstances: (8) the amount involved and the results
obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys;.(10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards
in similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). The court need only consider the factors not already subsumed in the initial lodestar calculation. Fischer v. SUB-P. D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000). There is a strong presumption that the lodestar method produces a reasonable figure and should only be enhanced or reduced □□ exceptional circumstances. Del. Valley Citizens, 478 USS. at 565; Fischer, 214 F.3d at 1119 n.4.
. Courts have discretion, however, to adjust the lodestar figure either: (1) downward if the plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success or if the fee is otherwise unreasonable, Hensley, 461 US. at 435-36, or (2) upward in “rare” and “exceptional” cases. Del. Valley Citizens, 478 U.S. at 565. DISCUSSION Plaintiff seeks an award of $17,595 in attorney fees and $1,545.95 in costs. Defendants
do not object. The Court grants these fees and costs without adjustment. iil
Page 2—OPINION AND ORDER
A. _ Reasonable Hourly Rate’ The calculation of reasonable attorney fees begins with the lodestar calculation. The Court must therefore determine the reasonable hourly rate and multiply that rate by the number □ of hours reasonably expended in the case. . _ A reasonable hourly rate is determined by looking at “prevailing market rates in the relevant community,” as well as the skill, experience, and reputation of the lawyer. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984); United States v. $28,000 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1 105 (9th Cir. 2015). The party requesting the fees has the burden of producing “satisfactory evidence,” in addition to the affidavits of counsel, that the requested rates are in step with those “prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The best evidence of the prevailing rates in Oregon is the Oregon State Bar Economic Survey, most recently issued in 2022. LR 54-3; Roberts v. Interstate Distrib. Co., 242 F. Supp.2d 850, 857 (D. Or. 2002); Mumford v. Electric Inst., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00375-AC, 2016 WL.8711693, at *2 (D. Or. April 29, 2016). The Oregon State Bar Economic Survey of 2022 breaks down hourly rates for attomeys □ based in Portland as follows:
Debi Elliott et al., Oregon State Bar 2022 Economic Survey (Mar. 2023), 22EconomicSurvey.pdf
(osbar.org). In this case, Plaintiff had the assistance of two Portland-based attorneys. Stephanie
Brown, who was admitted to the Oregon State Bar in 2003, is requesting an hourly rate of $450. Karen Moore, admitted in 2004, is also requesting an hourly rate of $450. Considering the experience level and location of Plaintiff's attorneys, the Court concludes that a rate of $45 0 per hour for both attorneys is reasonable. B. Reasonable Number of Hours The party seeking the fee award bears the burden of demonstrating the number of hours spent was reasonably necessary to the litigation and that counsel made “a good faith effort to exclude froma fee-request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. This burden can be satisfied by submitting documentary evidence supporting the hours worked and fees claimed. Jd. at 433; United States v. $28,000 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2015). Fee petitions that include inadequate detail □□ □ that fail to separate time for individual tasks may be totally or partially denied or apportioned ‘accordingly. See F ischer, 214 F.3d at 1121 (noting district court has authority to reduce or deny
_ fee requests that are “poorly documented.”). _ Plaintiff is seeking 22.20 hours for Ms. Brown and 16.90 hours for Ms. Moore, both at- the $450 rate. Plaintiff's attomeys made voluntary reductions to the fees requested, reducing the total time billed: by almost 10 hours from the total time recorded. After reviewing the documentary evidence, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's attorneys have provided sufficient detail regarding the hours worked and the tasks and the fees billed. Thus, the Court concludes the hours billed in this case are reasonable. iil .
Page 4-OPINION AND ORDER ~ .
Cc. Kerr Factors . .
The Court finds that the Kerr econ do not require an adjustment of the lodestar amount, which is presumed Peneone blew Wdciionally, Defendants do not object to Plaintiff's attorneys’ hourly rates or hours billed. D. Deposition Transcript and Video Costs _
The Court previously approved Plaintiff's request foncoct associated with the 30(b)(6) ‘deposition of Rise Law. Plaintiff has submitted invoice.records detailing the costs associated ‘with the deposition. The invoice addressed to Ms. Brown charges a total of $470.00 for video services. The invoice addressed to Ms. Moore charges a total of $1,075.95 for reer and □ associated services.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
HEATHER ARAGON, Civ. No. 1:22-cv-00935-CL Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER Vv.
RISE LAW GROUP INC. ET AL. Defendants.
CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. ‘
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees (#75). The Court previously issued an Order (#60) granting Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (#44) due to an unprepared Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition. The Court also awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs. Plaintiff now moves to collect the fees and costs. For the reasons below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. .
LEGAL STANDARD The Ninth Circuit has adopted the “lodestar” method for calculating attorney fees. Camacho vy. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). That calculation multiplies a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended in the litigation. ‘Hensley Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Pennsylvania y. Del. Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean □ Air, 478 U.S. 546, 564 (1986). The court must then decide whether to enhance or reduce the □
lodestar figure by evaluating several factors. Moreno vy. City of Sacremento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir, 2008). The court may adjust the lodestar to account for factors such as: (1) the time and labor.
_ tequired; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time □ limitations imposed by the client ot the circumstances: (8) the amount involved and the results
obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys;.(10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards
in similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). The court need only consider the factors not already subsumed in the initial lodestar calculation. Fischer v. SUB-P. D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 n.4 (9th Cir. 2000). There is a strong presumption that the lodestar method produces a reasonable figure and should only be enhanced or reduced □□ exceptional circumstances. Del. Valley Citizens, 478 USS. at 565; Fischer, 214 F.3d at 1119 n.4.
. Courts have discretion, however, to adjust the lodestar figure either: (1) downward if the plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success or if the fee is otherwise unreasonable, Hensley, 461 US. at 435-36, or (2) upward in “rare” and “exceptional” cases. Del. Valley Citizens, 478 U.S. at 565. DISCUSSION Plaintiff seeks an award of $17,595 in attorney fees and $1,545.95 in costs. Defendants
do not object. The Court grants these fees and costs without adjustment. iil
Page 2—OPINION AND ORDER
A. _ Reasonable Hourly Rate’ The calculation of reasonable attorney fees begins with the lodestar calculation. The Court must therefore determine the reasonable hourly rate and multiply that rate by the number □ of hours reasonably expended in the case. . _ A reasonable hourly rate is determined by looking at “prevailing market rates in the relevant community,” as well as the skill, experience, and reputation of the lawyer. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984); United States v. $28,000 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1 105 (9th Cir. 2015). The party requesting the fees has the burden of producing “satisfactory evidence,” in addition to the affidavits of counsel, that the requested rates are in step with those “prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The best evidence of the prevailing rates in Oregon is the Oregon State Bar Economic Survey, most recently issued in 2022. LR 54-3; Roberts v. Interstate Distrib. Co., 242 F. Supp.2d 850, 857 (D. Or. 2002); Mumford v. Electric Inst., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00375-AC, 2016 WL.8711693, at *2 (D. Or. April 29, 2016). The Oregon State Bar Economic Survey of 2022 breaks down hourly rates for attomeys □ based in Portland as follows:
Debi Elliott et al., Oregon State Bar 2022 Economic Survey (Mar. 2023), 22EconomicSurvey.pdf
(osbar.org). In this case, Plaintiff had the assistance of two Portland-based attorneys. Stephanie
Brown, who was admitted to the Oregon State Bar in 2003, is requesting an hourly rate of $450. Karen Moore, admitted in 2004, is also requesting an hourly rate of $450. Considering the experience level and location of Plaintiff's attorneys, the Court concludes that a rate of $45 0 per hour for both attorneys is reasonable. B. Reasonable Number of Hours The party seeking the fee award bears the burden of demonstrating the number of hours spent was reasonably necessary to the litigation and that counsel made “a good faith effort to exclude froma fee-request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. This burden can be satisfied by submitting documentary evidence supporting the hours worked and fees claimed. Jd. at 433; United States v. $28,000 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2015). Fee petitions that include inadequate detail □□ □ that fail to separate time for individual tasks may be totally or partially denied or apportioned ‘accordingly. See F ischer, 214 F.3d at 1121 (noting district court has authority to reduce or deny
_ fee requests that are “poorly documented.”). _ Plaintiff is seeking 22.20 hours for Ms. Brown and 16.90 hours for Ms. Moore, both at- the $450 rate. Plaintiff's attomeys made voluntary reductions to the fees requested, reducing the total time billed: by almost 10 hours from the total time recorded. After reviewing the documentary evidence, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's attorneys have provided sufficient detail regarding the hours worked and the tasks and the fees billed. Thus, the Court concludes the hours billed in this case are reasonable. iil .
Page 4-OPINION AND ORDER ~ .
Cc. Kerr Factors . .
The Court finds that the Kerr econ do not require an adjustment of the lodestar amount, which is presumed Peneone blew Wdciionally, Defendants do not object to Plaintiff's attorneys’ hourly rates or hours billed. D. Deposition Transcript and Video Costs _
The Court previously approved Plaintiff's request foncoct associated with the 30(b)(6) ‘deposition of Rise Law. Plaintiff has submitted invoice.records detailing the costs associated ‘with the deposition. The invoice addressed to Ms. Brown charges a total of $470.00 for video services. The invoice addressed to Ms. Moore charges a total of $1,075.95 for reer and □ associated services. In total the invoices add to $1,545.95 which is reflected in the costs requested by Plaintiff. The Court deems these costs reasonable. CONCLUSION For the reasons set out above, Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney’s Fees (#75) is GRANTED. -
Plaintiff is awarded reasonable and necessary attorney fees for the Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition of Rise Law in the aout of $17,595.00 and for costs and dis sersements of . $1,545.95. ITIS SO ORDERED and DATED this *aey of Ociet6r, 2024
Z & D. CLARKE United States Magistrate Judge
Page 5- OPINION AND ORDER □