Gareth Spicer v. US Bank, Safeco Insurance Company of America, Copart of Arizona d/b/a Copart

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01003
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 GARETH SPICER, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01003-APG-BNW

4 Plaintiff Order Granting Motions for Attorney Fees

5 v. [ECF Nos. 106, 109]

6 US BANK, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, COPART OF 7 ARIZONA d/b/a COPART,

8 Defendants

9 Defendants US Bank and Safeco Insurance Company of America served on plaintiff 10 Gareth Spicer separate offers of judgment under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Spicer 11 ignored those offers, thereby rejecting them by silence. Nev. R. Civ. P. 68(e). Both US Bank and 12 Safeco eventually prevailed in this case, meaning Spicer did not obtain a judgment more 13 favorable than the offers. Thus, US Bank and Safeco now move for awards of their attorney fees 14 incurred in this matter. ECF Nos. 106, 109. Spicer has not opposed either motion. 15 Under Nevada law, a prevailing defendant is entitled to recover attorney fees if an offer 16 of judgment is rejected and the plaintiff does not recover a more favorable judgment. Nev. R. 17 Civ. P. 68(f). That rule also applies in federal diversity cases. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. 18 Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 260 n.31 (1975) (“In an ordinary diversity case where the state 19 law does not run counter to a valid federal statute or rule of court, and usually it will not, state 20 law denying the right to attorney’s fees or giving a right thereto, which reflects a substantial 21 policy of the state, should be followed.” (quotation omitted)); see also MRO Commc’ns Inc. v. 22 AT&T Corp., 197 F.3d 1276, 1281 (9th Cir. 1999) (same). “Nevada’s offer of judgment rule is 23 not counter to any applicable federal statute or rule, and it reflects a substantial policy of Nevada 1 to encourage settlement and award fees as a result of a rejected offer of judgment.” Amezcua v. 2 Jordan Transp., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01608-APG-CWH, 2017 WL 1293994, at *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 3 31, 2017). Because Spicer did not obtain a more favorable judgment than what he would have 4 received if he had accepted the offers, US Bank and Safeco may recover their post-offer attorney

5 fees and costs. Nev. R. Civ. P. 68(f). 6 In deciding whether to award fees under Rule 68, I 7 must carefully evaluate the following factors: (1) whether the plaintiff’s claim was brought in good faith; (2) whether the defendants’ offer of judgment was 8 reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; (3) whether the plaintiff’s decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly 9 unreasonable or in bad faith; and (4) whether the fees sought by the offeror are reasonable and justified in amount. 10 11 Beattie v. Thomas, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (Nev. 1983). “[N]o one factor under Beattie is 12 determinative and [I have] broad discretion to grant the request so long as all appropriate factors 13 are considered.” Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 955 P.2d 661, 673 n.16 (Nev. 1998). 14 Spicer alleged Safeco violated various provisions of its car insurance policy and Nevada 15 law in how it handled Spicer’s claim. Coverage under the policy was contingent on Spicer 16 cooperating with Safeco’s investigation and permitting Safeco to inspect and appraise the 17 vehicle. But Spicer failed to comply with those obligations despite repeated demands by Safeco 18 to him and his lawyers. Thus, Spicer had no good-faith basis for his claims against Safeco. 19 US Bank’s motion does not address whether Spicer’s claims against it were brought in 20 good faith. Thus, US Bank has not satisfied this factor. 21 Nineteen months after Spicer filed this lawsuit, the parties engaged in an unsuccessful 22 mediation. One week later, Safeco offered to pay Spicer $20,000 to resolve the case. US Bank 23 sent its $10,000 offer approximately two months after the mediation. By then, discovery had 1 commenced, several people (including Spicer) had been deposed, and Spicer had ample 2 opportunity to investigate the merits of his claims. The timing of the offers was thus reasonable, 3 and given that US Bank and Spicer prevailed on their respective motions, the amounts they 4 offered were reasonable. Similarly, Spicer’s rejection of the offers was grossly unreasonable,

5 given his meritless claims. 6 Finally, the fees sought by US Bank and Safeco are reasonable and justified. I have 7 considered the factors in Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat’l Bank, 455 P2d 31, 33 (Nev. 1969).1 8 Extensive discovery was conducted, including several depositions; several motions, related to 9 discovery disputes and the merits of the case, were litigated; and additional work was required by 10 Spicer’s failure to participate after his counsel withdrew. The qualities of the advocates were 11 appropriate to the tasks. The amounts charged are reasonable in light of how this litigation 12 progressed. And the results speak for themselves. 13 Safeco also moves for an award of $17,480 for its expert’s expenses. ECF No. 109 at 11. 14 Nevada Rule 68(f)(1)(B) allows recovery of all “post-offer costs and expenses.” I award Safeco

15 that amount. This award is without prejudice to Safeco recovering additional costs under its 16 pending bill of costs. ECF No. 104. 17 For all these reasons, US Bank is entitled to an award of its fees in the amount of 18 $108,490, and Safeco is entitled to an award of its fees in the amount of $128,262 and costs in 19 the amount of $17,480. 20 21 22

1 “Nevada law does not require billing records with every attorney fees request. The law only 23 requires the trial court to calculate ‘a reasonable fee.’” O’Connell v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 429 P.3d 664, 670 (Nev. App. 2018) (citation omitted). 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that the defendants’ motions for attorney fees (ECF Nos. 106, 2||109) are GRANTED. The clerk of court is instructed to enter a second amended judgment as 3|| follows: 4 -in favor of defendant Copart of Arizona dba Copart and against plaintiff Gareth Spicer 5 -in favor of defendant US Bank and against plaintiff Gareth Spicer in the amount of 6|| $108,490 for attorney fees 7 -in favor of defendant Safeco Insurance Company of America and against plaintiff Gareth 8||in the amount of $128,262 for attorney fees and $17,480 for expert expenses. 9 DATED this 5th day of January, 2026. 10 G7 ANDREWP.GORDON. D CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23