Clements v. Ivory

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE BERNARD CLEMENTS, JR. Case No. 24-cv-04601-AMO Plaintiff, 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART 9 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 10 MILOUS JAMES IVORY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 29 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff George Bernard Clements, Jr.’s motion for $20,650.33 in 14 attorney’s fees which Plaintiff seeks to recover as a result of Defendant Milous James Ivory’s 15 three failed removal attempts. ECF 29. On January 23, 2025, Ivory filed an opposition to the 16 instant motion (ECF 30),1 and on January 27, 2025, Clements filed a reply (ECF 31). The motion 17 is fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-6. This Order 18 assumes familiarity with the facts and history of this case. Having read the parties’ papers and 19 carefully considered the arguments therein and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby 20 GRANTS IN PART Clements’s motion for the following reasons. 21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), an order remanding a case “may require payment of just costs 22 and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” As the 23 Court previously noted, Ivory’s repeated removals on the same basis were a tactic to delay 24 proceedings in state court. ECF 16 at 1. Accordingly, the Court may award attorney’s fees for 25 work performed related to removal. See Martin v. Franklin Cap. Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005) 26 (holding courts may award attorney’s fees where “the removing party lacked an objectively 27 1 reasonable basis for seeking removal”). 2 The Court denied without prejudice Clements’s first motion for attorney’s fees, ECF 18, as 3 it did not meet the requirements of Civil Local Rule 54-5. See ECF 28. Clements’s instant motion 4 has cured those defects. First, Clements’s counsel’s submissions include a statement that they 5 made a good faith effort to arrange a conference with Ivory for the purpose of attempting to 6 resolve any disputes with respect to the motion. Civ. L.R. 54-5(a); see Decl. of Tanner Brink 7 (ECF 29-2) ¶ 6; Decl. of Tanner Brink (ECF 31-1) ¶ 4.2 8 Second, the instant motion complies with Civil Local Rule 54-5(b)(2), which requires that 9 any motion for attorney’s fees include “a statement of the services rendered by each person for 10 whose services fees are claimed, together with a summary of the time spent by each person, and a 11 statement describing the manner in which time records were maintained.” Attached to Clements’s 12 motion is a declaration by counsel explaining how the time records were kept and maintained, as 13 well as invoices itemizing the costs and fees incurred. Clements states that he has incurred 14 $17,395.33 in attorney’s fees and expenses related to the three improper removal attempts, 15 including drafting filings and preparing for hearings at a rate of $465/hour, and incurring filing 16 fees. ECF 29 at 3; Decl. of Tanner Brink (ECF 29-2) ¶ 7. While Ivory argues Clements’s 17 counsel’s invoices are improperly “block billed,” and thus reduction or elimination of the hours 18 claimed is warranted, ECF 30 at 6, the Court finds the invoices are sufficiently itemized to 19 “determine how much time was spent on particular activities.” Welch v. Metropolitan Life 20 Insurance Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). 21 However, further review of the invoices leads the Court to conclude that Clements is not 22 entitled to all the fees and costs requested. Of the $17,395.33 requested, the Court finds that 23 $9,021.00 was incurred from work related to the improper removals, including researching and 24 drafting the motion to remand and preparing Clements’s first motion for attorney’s fees. The 25 2 While the description of these efforts in the motion and declaration in support initially submitted 26 fail to state the number of times, much less the dates, Clements’s counsel attempted to contact Ivory, the declaration in support of the reply sufficiently details the attempts to contact Ivory by 27 sending an email and leaving a voicemail message on January 24, 2025. Decl. of Tanner Brink 1 Court finds those fees may properly be awarded. The remainder of the fees and costs sought all 2 appear to relate to a motion for summary judgment filed in state court. The Court has no manner 3 of assessing the reasonableness of those fees and costs, and Clements has cited no authority to 4 || support the Court’s granting those fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court declines to grant them. 5 Finally, Clements seeks an additional $3,255 in fees based on an additional seven hours counsel 6 || represented he intended to spend reviewing any opposition and preparing and attending the court 7 hearing. ECF 29 at 4. As the Court vacated the hearing on this motion, see ECF 32, it declines to 8 award the anticipated fees. See Smith v. Smith, No. 21-cv-8691-TSH, 2021 WL 4485717, at *1 9 || (NLD. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021) (excluding an award of attorney’s fees anticipated fees for reviewing 10 an opposition, preparing a reply, and attending a hearing). 11 12 CONCLUSION 5 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Clements’s motion for 14 || attorney’s fees, finding Clements is entitled to $9,021.00 in fees incurred due to Ivory’s three 3 15 improper removal attempts. 16

= 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. || Datea: February 18, 2025 19 □□ x Chal Made ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28