Chen v. U.S. Bank National Association

W.D. Washington

Chen v. U.S. Bank National Association

DecidedJanuary 13, 2020

Docket2:16-cv-01109

StatusUnknown

This text of Chen v. U.S. Bank National Association (Chen v. U.S. Bank National Association) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chen v. U.S. Bank National Association, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 CHI CHEN, et al., Case No. 16-1109RSM 10

11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING U.S. BANK’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY 12 v. FEES 13 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et 14 al.,

15 Defendants. 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant U.S. Bank National Association 17 (“U.S. Bank”)’s Motion for Fee Award. Dkts. #213. This Motion is in response to the Court’s 18 19 recent Order compelling discovery responses. Dkt. #211. No Plaintiff has opposed this Motion. 20 Rule 37 provides that if a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an 21 opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, 22 the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses 23 incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Rule 37(a)(5)(A). District courts 24 25 have broad discretion to determine the reasonableness of fees. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 26 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). To make this determination, courts determine the “lodestar 27 amount,” which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a 28 reasonable hourly rate. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). 1 2 The lodestar figure is presumptively a reasonable fee award. Id. at 977. The court may adjust 3 the lodestar figure up or down based upon the factors listed in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 4 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.1975). The court need not consider the Kerr factors, however, unless 5 necessary to support the reasonableness of the fee award. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 6 F.3d 1139, 1158 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 8 The Court has reviewed the submitted materials and finds that the number of hours 9 incurred, and the hourly rates charged by counsel, are reasonable given the number of Plaintiffs 10 and the complexity of discovery in this case. 11 Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, 12 13 and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 14 1. Defendant U.S. Bank’s Motion for Fee Award is GRANTED. 15 2. All Plaintiffs collectively shall pay U.S. Bank $49,357.80 as reasonable expenses. 16 3. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, in a 17 manner to be specified by U.S. Bank. 18 19 DATED this 13 day of January 2020. 20 A 21 22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 CHI CHEN, et al., Case No. 16-1109RSM 10

11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING U.S. BANK’S SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY 12 v. FEES 13 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et 14 al.,

15 Defendants. 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant U.S. Bank National Association 17 (“U.S. Bank”)’s Motion for Fee Award. Dkts. #213. This Motion is in response to the Court’s 18 19 recent Order compelling discovery responses. Dkt. #211. No Plaintiff has opposed this Motion. 20 Rule 37 provides that if a motion to compel is granted, “the court must, after giving an 21 opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, 22 the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses 23 incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees.” Rule 37(a)(5)(A). District courts 24 25 have broad discretion to determine the reasonableness of fees. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 26 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). To make this determination, courts determine the “lodestar 27 amount,” which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a 28 reasonable hourly rate. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). 1 2 The lodestar figure is presumptively a reasonable fee award. Id. at 977. The court may adjust 3 the lodestar figure up or down based upon the factors listed in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 4 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.1975). The court need not consider the Kerr factors, however, unless 5 necessary to support the reasonableness of the fee award. Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 6 F.3d 1139, 1158 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 8 The Court has reviewed the submitted materials and finds that the number of hours 9 incurred, and the hourly rates charged by counsel, are reasonable given the number of Plaintiffs 10 and the complexity of discovery in this case. 11 Having reviewed the relevant pleadings, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, 12 13 and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 14 1. Defendant U.S. Bank’s Motion for Fee Award is GRANTED. 15 2. All Plaintiffs collectively shall pay U.S. Bank $49,357.80 as reasonable expenses. 16 3. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, in a 17 manner to be specified by U.S. Bank. 18 19 DATED this 13 day of January 2020. 20 A 21 22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chen v. U.S. Bank National Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chen-v-us-bank-national-association-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack