1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 LEIR FUNK, Case No. 20-cv-01378-BLF
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS 10 BANK OF HAWAII, et al., [Re: ECF 28] 11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the court is Plaintiff Leire Funk’s Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs at ECF 11. 14 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff Leire Funk brings this action against Bank of Hawai’i (“BOH”) and MTGLQ 17 Investors, L.P. (“MTGLQ”) (together “Defendants”) alleging unlawful conduct related to 18 Defendants’ foreclosure of Plaintiff’s real property. Exh. A to Am. Notice of Removal (“Compl.”), 19 ECF 16. On February 24, 2020, BOH removed this action from California state court based on 20 diversity jurisdiction. See ECF 1. On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand challenging 21 BOH’s basis for establishing diversity jurisdiction and requested attorney’s fees related to the 22 motion for remand from BOH. Mot. for Remand and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs 23 (“Mot.”), ECF 11. On March 9, 2020, BOH filed a notice of errata regarding its notice of removal 24 and an amended notice of removal. ECF 13; ECF 15. On the same day, MTGLQ filed its notice of 25 appearance, consented to removal, and clarified its citizenship. ECF 12; 14. On March 24, 2020, 26 Plaintiff filed a reply. ECF 24. On May 14, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for remand 27 and request for attorney’s fees against BOH. ECF 26. The Court allowed Plaintiff to file a 1 setting out the attorney’s fees with regard to the motion for remand. Decl. of Brenna Wood 2 Fitzpatrick (“Fitzpatrick Decl.”), ECF 28. The time for BOH to respond to Plaintiff’s declaration 3 has passed without any response. 4 II. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 5 In calculating awards for attorneys’ fees, courts apply the “lodestar” method to the facts of 6 each case. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Hensley 7 v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983). The lodestar amount is presumptively reasonable. See 8 Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Center, LLC, 893 F.3d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir. 2018). “The ‘lodestar’ is 9 calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the 10 litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 11 1996), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1997). Once calculated, the 12 lodestar amount may be further adjusted based on other factors not already subsumed in the initial 13 lodestar calculation. Morales, 96 F.3d at 363–64, 363 nn.3–4 (identifying factors) (citing Kerr v. 14 Screen Guild Extras, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), abrogated on other grounds by City of 15 Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992)). 16 Here, Plaintiff seeks to recover $2,655.00 billed by one attorney, Brenna Wood Fitzpatrick 17 (“Fitzpatrick”). Fitzpatrick Decl. ¶ 5. Fitzpatrick is two years out of law school. Id. ¶ 2. She bills 18 at $295.00 per hour. Id. Fitzpatrick spent 9 hours working on matters related to the motion for 19 remand. Id. ¶ 3. 20 As explained below, the Court finds that both the hourly rate and number of hours spent are 21 reasonable and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. 22 A. Reasonableness of Rates 23 When determining an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate, courts weigh the “experience, skill, 24 and reputation of the attorney requesting fees,” and compare the requested rates to prevailing market 25 rates of the relevant community. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210–11 (9th 26 Cir. 1986), op. am. on denial of reh’g, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Blum v. Stenson, 465 27 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). The relevant community is typically the forum in which the district court 1 attorney affidavits as well as “decisions by other courts awarding similar rates for work in the same 2 geographical area by attorneys with comparable levels of experience.” Trujillo v. Orozco, No. 5:17- 3 cv-00566-EJD, 2018 WL 1142311, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018); see also United Steelworkers of 4 Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). 5 Here, the relevant community is the Northern District of California. Plaintiff submitted a 6 detailed itemization of attorney’s fees. Fitzpatrick Decl. Exh. A. Fitzpatrick charged an hourly rate 7 of $295 per hour. Fitzpatrick Decl. ¶ 5. Fitzpatrick states that an attorney at her level of experience 8 at her firm charges at $372.00 per hour, and her rate, $295 per hour, is reasonable. Id. ¶ 2. 9 The Court agrees. In examining rates for similar work (business and commercial litigation) 10 and experience (associate), courts in the Northern District have found rates in a similar range to be 11 reasonable. See, e.g., Superior Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Steeves-Kiss, No. 17-cv-06059-EMC, 2018 12 WL 2183295, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) (“[D]istrict courts in Northern California have found 13 that rates of $300–$490 per hour for associates are reasonable.”); Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 14 N.A., No. C 07-05923 WHA, 2015 WL 2438274, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) (finding 15 reasonable rates for Bay Area attorneys of $300–$490 for associates); Prison Legal News v. 16 Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 455 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding no abuse of discretion in awarding fees 17 at a 2008 hourly rates of $340 for a fifth-year associate). 18 Thus, the Court finds that the attorney’s rate fall within the range determined reasonable 19 given the prevailing market in the Northern District of California and the attorney’s skills and 20 experience. 21 B. Reasonableness of Hours 22 The Court next considers the reasonableness of the hours expended. A court cannot 23 “uncritically” accept a party’s representations; rather, it must assess the reasonableness of the hours 24 requested. Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1385 (9th Cir. 1984). In making this 25 determination, the Court can reduce hours when documentation is inadequate, or when the requested 26 hours are redundant, excessive, or unnecessary. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433–34. The moving party 27 bears the burden of providing relevant documentation. Id. at 433. Upon examining the 1 not reasonably expended. □□□ at 434. 2 Here, from February 25, 2020, through March 24, 2020, Fitzpatrick expended 9 hours on 3 || preparing the motion for remand and related submissions. Fitzpatrick Decl. Exh. B. The Court has 4 || reviewed Fitzpatrick’s billed hours on various tasks associated with the motion for remand and the 5 supporting reply. The 10-page motion for remand is thorough and clear, explicitly laying out why 6 || BOH failed to carry its burden of establishing the basis for removal. See Mot.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 LEIR FUNK, Case No. 20-cv-01378-BLF
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS 10 BANK OF HAWAII, et al., [Re: ECF 28] 11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the court is Plaintiff Leire Funk’s Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs at ECF 11. 14 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff Leire Funk brings this action against Bank of Hawai’i (“BOH”) and MTGLQ 17 Investors, L.P. (“MTGLQ”) (together “Defendants”) alleging unlawful conduct related to 18 Defendants’ foreclosure of Plaintiff’s real property. Exh. A to Am. Notice of Removal (“Compl.”), 19 ECF 16. On February 24, 2020, BOH removed this action from California state court based on 20 diversity jurisdiction. See ECF 1. On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for remand challenging 21 BOH’s basis for establishing diversity jurisdiction and requested attorney’s fees related to the 22 motion for remand from BOH. Mot. for Remand and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs 23 (“Mot.”), ECF 11. On March 9, 2020, BOH filed a notice of errata regarding its notice of removal 24 and an amended notice of removal. ECF 13; ECF 15. On the same day, MTGLQ filed its notice of 25 appearance, consented to removal, and clarified its citizenship. ECF 12; 14. On March 24, 2020, 26 Plaintiff filed a reply. ECF 24. On May 14, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for remand 27 and request for attorney’s fees against BOH. ECF 26. The Court allowed Plaintiff to file a 1 setting out the attorney’s fees with regard to the motion for remand. Decl. of Brenna Wood 2 Fitzpatrick (“Fitzpatrick Decl.”), ECF 28. The time for BOH to respond to Plaintiff’s declaration 3 has passed without any response. 4 II. ATTORNEYS’ FEES 5 In calculating awards for attorneys’ fees, courts apply the “lodestar” method to the facts of 6 each case. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Hensley 7 v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983). The lodestar amount is presumptively reasonable. See 8 Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Center, LLC, 893 F.3d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir. 2018). “The ‘lodestar’ is 9 calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the 10 litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 11 1996), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 108 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 1997). Once calculated, the 12 lodestar amount may be further adjusted based on other factors not already subsumed in the initial 13 lodestar calculation. Morales, 96 F.3d at 363–64, 363 nn.3–4 (identifying factors) (citing Kerr v. 14 Screen Guild Extras, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), abrogated on other grounds by City of 15 Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992)). 16 Here, Plaintiff seeks to recover $2,655.00 billed by one attorney, Brenna Wood Fitzpatrick 17 (“Fitzpatrick”). Fitzpatrick Decl. ¶ 5. Fitzpatrick is two years out of law school. Id. ¶ 2. She bills 18 at $295.00 per hour. Id. Fitzpatrick spent 9 hours working on matters related to the motion for 19 remand. Id. ¶ 3. 20 As explained below, the Court finds that both the hourly rate and number of hours spent are 21 reasonable and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. 22 A. Reasonableness of Rates 23 When determining an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate, courts weigh the “experience, skill, 24 and reputation of the attorney requesting fees,” and compare the requested rates to prevailing market 25 rates of the relevant community. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210–11 (9th 26 Cir. 1986), op. am. on denial of reh’g, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Blum v. Stenson, 465 27 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). The relevant community is typically the forum in which the district court 1 attorney affidavits as well as “decisions by other courts awarding similar rates for work in the same 2 geographical area by attorneys with comparable levels of experience.” Trujillo v. Orozco, No. 5:17- 3 cv-00566-EJD, 2018 WL 1142311, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2018); see also United Steelworkers of 4 Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). 5 Here, the relevant community is the Northern District of California. Plaintiff submitted a 6 detailed itemization of attorney’s fees. Fitzpatrick Decl. Exh. A. Fitzpatrick charged an hourly rate 7 of $295 per hour. Fitzpatrick Decl. ¶ 5. Fitzpatrick states that an attorney at her level of experience 8 at her firm charges at $372.00 per hour, and her rate, $295 per hour, is reasonable. Id. ¶ 2. 9 The Court agrees. In examining rates for similar work (business and commercial litigation) 10 and experience (associate), courts in the Northern District have found rates in a similar range to be 11 reasonable. See, e.g., Superior Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Steeves-Kiss, No. 17-cv-06059-EMC, 2018 12 WL 2183295, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) (“[D]istrict courts in Northern California have found 13 that rates of $300–$490 per hour for associates are reasonable.”); Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, 14 N.A., No. C 07-05923 WHA, 2015 WL 2438274, at *5 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2015) (finding 15 reasonable rates for Bay Area attorneys of $300–$490 for associates); Prison Legal News v. 16 Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446, 455 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding no abuse of discretion in awarding fees 17 at a 2008 hourly rates of $340 for a fifth-year associate). 18 Thus, the Court finds that the attorney’s rate fall within the range determined reasonable 19 given the prevailing market in the Northern District of California and the attorney’s skills and 20 experience. 21 B. Reasonableness of Hours 22 The Court next considers the reasonableness of the hours expended. A court cannot 23 “uncritically” accept a party’s representations; rather, it must assess the reasonableness of the hours 24 requested. Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1385 (9th Cir. 1984). In making this 25 determination, the Court can reduce hours when documentation is inadequate, or when the requested 26 hours are redundant, excessive, or unnecessary. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433–34. The moving party 27 bears the burden of providing relevant documentation. Id. at 433. Upon examining the 1 not reasonably expended. □□□ at 434. 2 Here, from February 25, 2020, through March 24, 2020, Fitzpatrick expended 9 hours on 3 || preparing the motion for remand and related submissions. Fitzpatrick Decl. Exh. B. The Court has 4 || reviewed Fitzpatrick’s billed hours on various tasks associated with the motion for remand and the 5 supporting reply. The 10-page motion for remand is thorough and clear, explicitly laying out why 6 || BOH failed to carry its burden of establishing the basis for removal. See Mot. The 6-page reply 7 also properly addressed the issues raised in the opposition and further explained why BOH has failed 8 || to establish diversity jurisdiction of this Court. See Reply in Supp. of Mot., ECF 24. Fitzpatrick’s 9 || 9 hours are reasonable under the circumstances. 10 In sum, the Court finds that the work was billed at a reasonable rate and was performed 11 within reasonable time. Thus, this Court GRANTS the requested attorney’s fees. 12 || IL ORDER 13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall recover attorney’s 14 fees in the amount of $2,655.00 requested in ECF 28. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18 || Dated: June 29, 2020 kom by) han tn) 19 (MEMLAN BETH LABSON FREEMAN 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28