Kalenowski v. City of Las Vegas

Opinion

3 *** MICAH D. KALENOWSKI, 4 Plaintiff, 5 2:20-cv-01743-GMN-VCF vs. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, et al., 7 Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 62] Defendants. 8

9 Defendants Brian Fortner, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, M. Martin, and Jordan 10 Miller filed a motion for attorney’s fees. ECF No. 62. I grant the motion in part. 11 I. Background 12 Plaintiff Kalenowski brings 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for excessive use of force in violation of the 13 Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and for municipal liability. ECF 14 No. 25. I held a hearing and (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to withdraw/amend the admissions and (2) 15 denied his motion to deem his admissions timely as moot. ECF No. 61. As part of that ruling, I allowed 16 the LVMPD defendants’ counsel to file an affidavit in support of recovering attorney’s fees incurred 17 from opposing plaintiff’s motions. Id. 18 The LVMPD defendants’ counsel argues that they incurred $7,036.00 in attorney’s fees to 19 respond to plaintiff’s motions. ECF No. 62. The plaintiff’s counsel argues that they did not act in bad 20 faith and that the fees are unreasonable. ECF No. 63. The defendants’ counsel argues that bad faith is 21 not at issue and that their fees are reasonable and appropriate. ECF No. 67. 22 II. Discussion 23 “The Ninth Circuit has expressly noted that the movant or his attorney may be required to pay a 24 substantial monetary fine and/or the opposing party's increased costs and expenses arising from 25 1 1 || admissions being withdrawn.” Martinez v. Smith's Food & Drug Ctr., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01199-GMN- 2 || NJK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106621, at 16 (D. Nev. June 15, 2022) (cleaned up), citing to Hadley v. 3 || United States, 45 F.3d 1345, 1350 (9th Cir. 1995) “When a court [allows] withdrawal of admissions, it 4 || may impose alternative sanctions related to that relief.” /d. “Such monetary relief may include the 5 || expenses associated with opposing a motion to withdraw[.]” Martinez, supra, at 16. 6 I have reviewed defendants’ counsel’s affidavit. Bad faith is not at issue here. Plaintiff's counsel 7 || erred when they did not timely comply with the deadline to respond to the request for admissions. 8 || Plaintiffs counsels’ error caused some prejudice to the defendants, such as some of the time the 9 || defendants spent having to respond to plaintiff's motions. On balance, I granted plaintiff's motion to 10 || withdraw the admissions for all the reasons stated on the record at the hearing. Looking at the totality 11 || of the circumstances, I order plaintiffs counsel to pay $3,000 to the defendants’ counsel. 12 Accordingly, 13 I ORDER that the defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED IN PART. 14 I FURTHER ORDER that plaintiff’s counsel has until Monday, November 7, 2022, to pay 15 || $3,000 to the defendants’ counsel. 16 DATED this 24th day of October 2022. Load acl. 17 ig UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25