Luv n' care Ltd v. Laurain

Opinion

3 ***

4 LUV N’ CARE, LTD., Case No.: 2:18-cv-02224-JAD-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 LINDSEY LAURAIN, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum of Attorney Fees (Submitted 11 Pursuant to ECF No. 33). 12 The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has largely adopted the hybrid 13 lodestar/multiplier approach, used by the Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 14 (1983), as the proper method for determining the amount of attorney’s fees due in most actions. The 15 lodestar/multiplier approach has two parts. First, the court determines the “lodestar” amount by 16 multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a motion by a reasonable hourly rate. 17 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. To get to this calculation, the party seeking an award of fees must submit 18 evidence supporting the hours worked and the rates claimed. Id. The district court will then, 19 generally, exclude from the lodestar amount hours that are not reasonably expended because they 20 are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. at 434. Second, after calculating the total 21 amount requested, the court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a “multiplier” based 22 on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898–901 (1984) 23 (reversing upward multiplier based on factors subsumed in the lodestar determination); Hensley, 461 24 U.S. at 434 n. 9 (noting that courts may look at “results obtained” and other factors but should 25 consider that many of these factors are subsumed in the lodestar calculation). 26 Here, the Court finds that the $500 hourly rate charged for time spent by Oganna Brown, a 27 partner and 18 year practitioner who clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals, is commensurate with 1 16 hours spent by Ms. Brown is reasonable. Mr. Blakely is the associate on the matter. Mr. Blakely 2 graduated in 2013, and clerked for U.S. District Judge Jones. His time is charged at $390 an hour. 3 Mr. Blakely spent 44.9 hours on the Motion for Contempt (the “Motion”), including researching, 4 drafting, and editing the briefing on the fee request. 5 A review of the billing entries by Mr. Blakely includes numerous communications regarding 6 or revising documents in light of Mr. Roth’s comments and feedback on the Motion. This time totals 7 10.3 hours. In addition to this 10.3 hours, there was time spent communicating with Mr. Roth and 8 revising documents pertaining to the briefing on the fee request that was not broken out by Plaintiff 9 in their billing records. Instead, these sections of the time entries are block-billed. Thus, 10 conservatively, the Court estimates an additional four (4) hours was spent (out of entries totaling 11 11.7 hours in which Mr. Roth is mentioned) in communication with or responding to comments by 12 Mr. Roth. While the Court understands the importance of the Motion and request for fees, upon 13 review, the Court finds the 14.3 hours, coupled with the time spent by Ms. Brown, is excessive or 14 redundant. Thus, the Court reduces the total lodestar amount spent by Mr. Blakely communicating 15 with or responding to communications with Mr. Roth by seven (7) hours. Mr. Blakely’s total time 16 is therefore reduced to 37.9 reimbursable hours billed. 17 In sum, having carefully reviewed the papers filed with respect to Plaintiff’s request for fees, 18 and the time entries submitted, the Court awards a total of $7,110 in attorneys’ fees for time spent 19 by Liskow & Lewis, $8,000 (16 x $500) in attorneys’ fees for time spent by Ms. Brown, and $14,781 20 (37.9 x 390) in fees for time spent by Mr. Blakely. The total award of fees is therefore $29,891. 21 Accordingly, 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Attorney’s Fees (found in ECF No. 23 12), which fees were denied without prejudice on September 10, 2019 for failure to fully support the 24 request, and which is now supported by Plaintiff’s Supplemental Memorandum of Attorney Fees 25 (ECF No. 33), is GRANTED. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the District Court rejects Blue Basin Medical LLC and 27 Bradley Laurain’s Objection to and Motion to Reconsider the Order of the Court (the “Objection”) 1 ECF No. 11 as entered, a total of $29,891.00 in reasonable attorney fees shall be due Luv N’ Care, 2 Ltd. from Blue Basin Medical, LLC and Bradley Laurain within 10 business days after such order. 3 In any other circumstance, such as a modification of ECF No. 11 entered on December 19, 2018, 4 this Order shall be held in abeyance, and neither Blue Basin nor Mr. Laurain shall be required to pay 5 any amount pursuant to this instant Order, until such time as the parties have had an opportunity to 6 resolve all outstanding issues arising from ECF No. 11, the December 11, 2018 order issued by the 7 Court. 8 9 DATED: September 24, 2019. 10 11 12 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27