Keybank National Association v. Sierra Petroleum Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: July 20, 2020
• Docket: 1:18-cv-03242
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jul 20, 2020

3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, an Ohio NO: 1:18-CV-3242-RMP 8 corporation, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 10 v.

11 SIERRA PETROLEUM, INC, a Washington corporation; and 12 DUSTIN R. RAMSEY, a Washington resident, 13 Defendants. 14

15 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 16 10. On May 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order holding the instant Motion in 17 abeyance. ECF No. 11. The Court concluded that, while default judgment is 18 appropriate, Plaintiffs had not provided sufficient documentation to support the 19 damages alleged in their verified complaint. In response, Plaintiffs provided 20 documentation to support their alleged damages, as well as their request for 21 1 attorney’s fees and costs. The Court has reviewed the supporting documentation and 2 is fully informed.

3 The Court already has discussed the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion for Default 4 Judgment and found that entering default judgment is appropriate here. See ECF 5 No. 11. Upon review of Plaintiff’s supplemental documentation, the Court finds

6 that Plaintiff has established that Defendants Sierra Petroleum, Inc. and Dustin R. 7 Ramsey are in arrears to Plaintiff in the amount of $298,698.46. This figure 8 consists of the $250,000 principal loan amount, $45,325.34 in interest, and 9 $3,373.12 in late charges and annual administration fees which have accrued over

10 1,371 days. See ECF No. 12-1 at 2. 11 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c), “A default judgment must 12 not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”

13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). The Court acknowledges that the amount Plaintiff seeks is 14 greater than the amount listed in the complaint, which was $268,185.60. However, 15 because the complaint requested “accruing interest and fees,” in addition to the 16 specific amount listed, the Court finds that the judgment amount requested by

17 Plaintiff does not violate Rule 54(c). See Merrifield v. Miner’s Inn Restaurant & 18 Lounge, 2006 WL 4285241, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2006) (“It has been held that 19 where a type of damages is requested in the complaint in an amount to be proved,

20 but the amount is not specified, recovery in excess of an amount stated is 21 permitted.”) (citing Henry v. Sneiders, 490 F.2d 315, 317 n.2 (9th Cir. 1974)). 1 Plaintiff’s complaint also requests reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. ECF 2 No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff’s attorney has submitted a declaration, supporting $1,645.00

3 in costs and $2,543.00 in attorney’s fees. ECF No. 12. Reasonable attorney’s fees 4 generally are determined by the “lodestar” calculation method in which the Court 5 first determines a reasonable fee by multiplying the “the number of hours

6 reasonably expended on the litigation” by “a reasonable hourly rate,” Hensely v. 7 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983), and, second, determines whether the lodestar 8 amount should be adjusted by any extenuating factor contemplated in Kerr v. 9 Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975).

10 Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees seeks the lodestar amount for the 11 attorney and paralegals that worked on this case. The Court finds that the hourly 12 rates are reasonable in light of the many fee requests this Court has reviewed.

13 However, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to collect attorney’s fees for hours 14 spent responding to the Court’s Order to provide supplemental documentation. 15 This documentation should have been submitted with the Motion for Default 16 Judgment. Accordingly, the Court awards $2,201.00 in attorney’s fees.

17 Finally, Plaintiff’s requested legal expenses and costs also are specified in 18 counsel’s declaration and appear consistent with necessary expenses to secure 19 relief for Plaintiff in this action. See ECF No. 12.

20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. For the reasons stated in the Court’s Order at ECF No. 11, Plaintiff’s 1 Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. 2 2. Default judgment shall be entered against Defendants in the amount of

3 $302,544.46. As outlined in this Order, this total amount includes the 4 principal loan amount, interest and fees on the loan, attorneys’ fees, and 5 costs. Defendants are jointly and severally liable.

6 3. Post-judgment interest shall be allowed as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this 8 Order, provide copies to counsel, and close this case. 9 DATED July 20, 2020.

11 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21