1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO INIGO, Case No.: 3:18-cv-2844-BEN-DEB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 14 EXPRESS MOVERS, INC., a Hawaii
Corporation, d/b/a Movers Hawaii, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 50] 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Fernando Inigo’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. ECF 18 No. 50. Defendant Express Movers, Inc. (“Express Movers”) remains unrepresented by 19 counsel and did not file any briefing addressing this Motion. For the reasons set forth 20 below, the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 This case concerns a shipment of household goods and a vehicle from Hawaii to 23 California. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Inigo filed a Complaint against Express Movers on 24 December 17, 2018. Id. He initially sought $39,827.00 in damages, which he alleged 25 represented the value of the items unlawfully withheld by Express Movers as the result of 26 a dispute over shipping costs. Id. at 9. On April 22, 2020, after sixteen months of 27 withholding Inigo’s household goods, Express Movers relinquished possession and 28 returned the items to him. Mot., ECF No. 42, 7. One month later, Mr. Elliot Canter, who 1 was then-counsel for Express Movers, moved to withdraw from the case, citing a conflict 2 of interest and Express Movers’ inability to afford an attorney. See Mot., ECF No. 29, 2. 3 On June 24, 2020, the Court granted Canter’s motion to withdraw as counsel for 4 Express Movers. Order, ECF No. 33. As Local Civil Rule 83.3(j) requires corporations 5 to be represented by counsel, the Court granted Express Movers thirty days to obtain new 6 counsel and have that counsel file a notice of appearance. Id. The Court also delayed the 7 Final Pretrial Conference until August 3, 2020. Id. 8 Express Movers failed to appear at the Final Pretrial Conference or retain new 9 counsel to file a notice of appearance on its behalf. Minute Order, ECF No. 35. The 10 Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Express Movers to obtain new counsel 11 while cautioning that failure to do so could result in sanctions, including striking Express 12 Movers’ Answer and entering default judgment against it. Order, ECF No. 36. Express 13 Movers still failed to respond. Accordingly, the Court entered default judgment on 14 August 24, 2020, and granted Inigo leave to file a Motion to Prove Damages. Order, ECF 15 No. 38. Inigo filed his Motion to Prove Damages, and Express Movers did not respond.1 16 The Court granted-in-part Inigo’s Motion to Prove Damages, finding he was entitled to 17 $1,838.97 in total damages for Express Movers’ violation of 49 U.S.C. § 14706. See 18 Order, ECF No. 47. These damages represented new items that Inigo was forced to 19 purchase while Express Movers wrongfully withheld his household goods. Id. at 5. 20 Inigo now seeks $69,849.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14708. 21 Mot., ECF No. 50, 4. Once again, Express Movers did not submit any briefing on the 22
23 1 Igor Stojadinovic, purportedly a representative of Express Movers, sent a letter to 24 the Court dated October 5, 2020, requesting a delay in the hearing on the motion for 25 default judgment. ECF No. 45. Mr. Stojadinovic stated he could not travel due to COVID-19 concerns. Id. However, the Court vacated the hearing on this motion, 26 submitted the matter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), and as such, denies 27 Mr. Stojadinovic’s request as moot. The Court also rejects Mr. Stojadinovic’s letter because it was submitted on behalf of a corporate defendant by a non-attorney. See Civ. 28 1 Motion for Attorney’s Fees. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, a party may file a motion for attorney’s 4 fees within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). A motion 5 for attorney’s fees must “specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds 6 entitling the movant to the award” and “state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate 7 of it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(ii)-(iii). The Carmack Amendment, codified at 49 U.S.C. 8 § 14706 et. seq, regulates the relationship between shipping companies and the owners of 9 goods under shipment. In certain circumstances, a shipper can recover attorney’s fees in 10 suits brought pursuant to the Carmack Amendment. See 49 U.S.C. § 14708(d). To 11 receive attorney’s fees in such cases, a plaintiff must (1) timely submit a claim for the 12 loss of their household goods, (2) prevail in a court action to resolve this dispute, and (3) 13 have no arbitration decision rendered in the dispute. See Campbell v. Allied Van Lines 14 Inc., 410 F.3d 618, 623 (9th Cir. 2005). 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 The Court first notes that Inigo has satisfied the three elements listed above for his 17 attorney’s fee claim. 18 Turning to the award amount, Inigo claims his counsel charged him $250 per hour 19 to represent him in this matter and expended 279 hours of time pursuing this case. Mot., 20 ECF No. 50, 9. Inigo requests a total award of $69,849.00. Inigo does not submit any 21 documentation to substantiate the total number of hours worked or itemize those hours in 22 23 24 2 On December 30, 2020, the Court issued a minute order submitting the Motion for 25 Attorney’s Fees and vacating the hearing set for January 4, 2021. ECF No. 51. However, on the date of the hearing, the Court received a phone call from Mr. 26 Stojadinovic indicating he had travelled from Hawaii to appear in-person at the since- 27 vacated hearing. Chambers informed Mr. Stojadinovic the hearing had been vacated and that corporate defendants must be represented by an attorney. See Civ. L. R. 83.3(j). 28 1 any way. The Court finds that the product of counsel’s hourly rate and number of hours 2 worked is only $69,750.00. Because Inigo failed to provide any explanation for the 3 difference in amounts, such as costs or expenses, the Court begins its analysis of an 4 appropriate fee by using the lesser amount. 5 In awarding attorney’s fees, the Court begins with the lodestar. Henley v. 6 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802 7 (2002) (applying lodestar to all fee-shifting cases in federal courts). The lodestar is “the 8 number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly 9 rate.” Hensley, 461 at 433. “The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence 10 supporting the hours worked and rates claimed.” Id. However, “[w]here the 11 documentation supporting the award is inadequate, the district court may reduce the 12 award accordingly.” Id. 13 In analyzing Inigo’s motion, the Court first finds that his counsel’s requested 14 hourly rate of $250 per hour is reasonable. However, the Court does not find Inigo’s 15 counsel reasonably expended 279 hours on this case because Inigo provided absolutely 16 no documentation that would allow the Court to evaluate the time allegedly worked.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO INIGO, Case No.: 3:18-cv-2844-BEN-DEB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 14 EXPRESS MOVERS, INC., a Hawaii
Corporation, d/b/a Movers Hawaii, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 50] 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff Fernando Inigo’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. ECF 18 No. 50. Defendant Express Movers, Inc. (“Express Movers”) remains unrepresented by 19 counsel and did not file any briefing addressing this Motion. For the reasons set forth 20 below, the Motion is GRANTED-IN-PART. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 This case concerns a shipment of household goods and a vehicle from Hawaii to 23 California. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Inigo filed a Complaint against Express Movers on 24 December 17, 2018. Id. He initially sought $39,827.00 in damages, which he alleged 25 represented the value of the items unlawfully withheld by Express Movers as the result of 26 a dispute over shipping costs. Id. at 9. On April 22, 2020, after sixteen months of 27 withholding Inigo’s household goods, Express Movers relinquished possession and 28 returned the items to him. Mot., ECF No. 42, 7. One month later, Mr. Elliot Canter, who 1 was then-counsel for Express Movers, moved to withdraw from the case, citing a conflict 2 of interest and Express Movers’ inability to afford an attorney. See Mot., ECF No. 29, 2. 3 On June 24, 2020, the Court granted Canter’s motion to withdraw as counsel for 4 Express Movers. Order, ECF No. 33. As Local Civil Rule 83.3(j) requires corporations 5 to be represented by counsel, the Court granted Express Movers thirty days to obtain new 6 counsel and have that counsel file a notice of appearance. Id. The Court also delayed the 7 Final Pretrial Conference until August 3, 2020. Id. 8 Express Movers failed to appear at the Final Pretrial Conference or retain new 9 counsel to file a notice of appearance on its behalf. Minute Order, ECF No. 35. The 10 Court issued an Order to Show Cause, requiring Express Movers to obtain new counsel 11 while cautioning that failure to do so could result in sanctions, including striking Express 12 Movers’ Answer and entering default judgment against it. Order, ECF No. 36. Express 13 Movers still failed to respond. Accordingly, the Court entered default judgment on 14 August 24, 2020, and granted Inigo leave to file a Motion to Prove Damages. Order, ECF 15 No. 38. Inigo filed his Motion to Prove Damages, and Express Movers did not respond.1 16 The Court granted-in-part Inigo’s Motion to Prove Damages, finding he was entitled to 17 $1,838.97 in total damages for Express Movers’ violation of 49 U.S.C. § 14706. See 18 Order, ECF No. 47. These damages represented new items that Inigo was forced to 19 purchase while Express Movers wrongfully withheld his household goods. Id. at 5. 20 Inigo now seeks $69,849.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 14708. 21 Mot., ECF No. 50, 4. Once again, Express Movers did not submit any briefing on the 22
23 1 Igor Stojadinovic, purportedly a representative of Express Movers, sent a letter to 24 the Court dated October 5, 2020, requesting a delay in the hearing on the motion for 25 default judgment. ECF No. 45. Mr. Stojadinovic stated he could not travel due to COVID-19 concerns. Id. However, the Court vacated the hearing on this motion, 26 submitted the matter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), and as such, denies 27 Mr. Stojadinovic’s request as moot. The Court also rejects Mr. Stojadinovic’s letter because it was submitted on behalf of a corporate defendant by a non-attorney. See Civ. 28 1 Motion for Attorney’s Fees. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, a party may file a motion for attorney’s 4 fees within fourteen days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). A motion 5 for attorney’s fees must “specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds 6 entitling the movant to the award” and “state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate 7 of it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(ii)-(iii). The Carmack Amendment, codified at 49 U.S.C. 8 § 14706 et. seq, regulates the relationship between shipping companies and the owners of 9 goods under shipment. In certain circumstances, a shipper can recover attorney’s fees in 10 suits brought pursuant to the Carmack Amendment. See 49 U.S.C. § 14708(d). To 11 receive attorney’s fees in such cases, a plaintiff must (1) timely submit a claim for the 12 loss of their household goods, (2) prevail in a court action to resolve this dispute, and (3) 13 have no arbitration decision rendered in the dispute. See Campbell v. Allied Van Lines 14 Inc., 410 F.3d 618, 623 (9th Cir. 2005). 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 The Court first notes that Inigo has satisfied the three elements listed above for his 17 attorney’s fee claim. 18 Turning to the award amount, Inigo claims his counsel charged him $250 per hour 19 to represent him in this matter and expended 279 hours of time pursuing this case. Mot., 20 ECF No. 50, 9. Inigo requests a total award of $69,849.00. Inigo does not submit any 21 documentation to substantiate the total number of hours worked or itemize those hours in 22 23 24 2 On December 30, 2020, the Court issued a minute order submitting the Motion for 25 Attorney’s Fees and vacating the hearing set for January 4, 2021. ECF No. 51. However, on the date of the hearing, the Court received a phone call from Mr. 26 Stojadinovic indicating he had travelled from Hawaii to appear in-person at the since- 27 vacated hearing. Chambers informed Mr. Stojadinovic the hearing had been vacated and that corporate defendants must be represented by an attorney. See Civ. L. R. 83.3(j). 28 1 any way. The Court finds that the product of counsel’s hourly rate and number of hours 2 worked is only $69,750.00. Because Inigo failed to provide any explanation for the 3 difference in amounts, such as costs or expenses, the Court begins its analysis of an 4 appropriate fee by using the lesser amount. 5 In awarding attorney’s fees, the Court begins with the lodestar. Henley v. 6 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802 7 (2002) (applying lodestar to all fee-shifting cases in federal courts). The lodestar is “the 8 number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly 9 rate.” Hensley, 461 at 433. “The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence 10 supporting the hours worked and rates claimed.” Id. However, “[w]here the 11 documentation supporting the award is inadequate, the district court may reduce the 12 award accordingly.” Id. 13 In analyzing Inigo’s motion, the Court first finds that his counsel’s requested 14 hourly rate of $250 per hour is reasonable. However, the Court does not find Inigo’s 15 counsel reasonably expended 279 hours on this case because Inigo provided absolutely 16 no documentation that would allow the Court to evaluate the time allegedly worked. 17 Accordingly, the Court reduces the hours claimed by forty percent to 167.4 hours. See 18 Drucker v. O'Brien's Moving & Storage Inc., 963 F.2d 1171, 1174 (9th Cir. 1992) 19 (affirming the district court’s decision to reduce an undocumented attorney’s fee request 20 in a case brought under the predecessor version of the Carmack Amendment). 21 The Court notes that not only did Inigo’s counsel fail to provide any fee 22 documentation, but her declaration also fails to describe any costs incurred, the type of 23 work done on this case, the difficulty of that work, and any other reasons justifying the 24 $69,849,00 in fees she requests. However, the Court also recognizes that, at a minimum, 25 this is not a typical default judgment case. In fact, the case was contested for almost 26 eighteen months before Express Movers’ counsel withdrew from the case. During that 27 time, Inigo’s counsel prepared the complaint, attended multiple hearings, filed and 28 responded to several discovery motions, and conducted discovery including the taking of 1 || depositions. After Express Movers’ counsel withdrew, she proceeded to prove up Inigo’s 2 through the show cause and default judgment proceedings. Accordingly, the Court 3 || finds counsel’s appropriate lodestar is $41,850.00. 4 ||IV. CONCLUSION 5 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees is 6 || GRANTED-IN-PART. The Court awards Plaintiff $41,850.00 in attorney’s fees. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. ° 8 || Date: March 11, 2021 9 IN. ROGER T. BENIT United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28