Land v. Allied Collection Services, Inc

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ***

4 DEREK LAND, Case No.: 2:22-cv-01641-APG-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. AMENDED ORDER Re: ECF No. 89 7 ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.;

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 8 INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; and TRANS UNION LLC, 9 Defendants. 10 11 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Objection at ECF No 90, sua sponte reconsider its 12 Order at ECF No. 89 in which it granted an award of attorney’s fees and costs. 13 The Court finds it erred in reducing fees awarded to Plaintiff’s counsel based on activity in 14 which such counsel engaged before being admitted to practice pro hac vice before this Court. A 15 review of Winterrowd v. American General Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2009), leads the 16 Court to find Mr. Chami would certainly have been admitted to appear pro hac vice as a matter of 17 course had he applied when certain time was spent in activities related to the litigation of this case. 18 The Court further finds there is no suggestion that Mr. Chami engaged in any unprofessional conduct 19 at any time during these proceedings. Thus, reduction of fees for time spent before admission pro 20 hac vice was unwarranted. 21 Based on the foregoing, the Court’s Order at ECF No. 89 is amended to award payment for 22 an additional 10.2 hours of Mr. Chami’s time. This results in an increase of $6,920.00 for a total 23 award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $60,630.00. 24 Accordingly, the Court’s Order at ECF No. 89 is incorporated into this Amended Order 25 and remains in full force and effect except as stated below: 26 1. Because the Court amends its Order at ECF No. 89, Plaintiff has the right, but not the 27 obligation, to refile an Objection if he so chooses. 1 2. Plaintiff must advise the Court and opposing counsel whether he intends to refile an 2 Objection no later than January 29, 2025. 3 3. If Plaintiff chooses to refile an Objection, the refiled Objection is due no later than 4 February 12, 2025. The response is due no later than February 28, 2025. 5 4. If Plaintiff chooses not to refile an Objection, he must file a notice with the Court, 6 serving Defendant, stating in sum, that he adopts his currently filed Objection in full except for 7 Section C regarding the failure to award fees incurred prior to pro hac vice admission. 8 5. If Plaintiff chooses not to refile an Objection, Defendant’s response to the Objection 9 is due no later than February 12, 2025. 10 6. Because an Objection was filed, the Court sua sponte, stays its Order awarding 11 attorney fees of $60,630.00 and costs in the amount of $2,742.50 until fourteen (14) days after the 12 date on which the district judge issues his order ruling on the Objection. 13 Dated this 24th day of January, 2025.

15 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27