Marc Harris v. Dean Meiling

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MARC HARRIS, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00339-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 8 DEAN MEILING, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiffs, investors in Metalast International, LLC (“Metalast”), initiated this putative 12 class action against Defendants, other investors in Metalast and their alleged co- 13 conspirators, for purportedly engaging in a fraudulent scheme to take Metalast through a 14 receivership proceeding and win control of Metalast from Plaintiffs, at a discount, and 15 without compensating Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 10 at 9-13.) Defendants prevailed both before 16 this Court and on appeal. In pertinent part, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 17 Circuit ordered the Court to award Defendants their reasonable attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 18 171.) The Court accordingly directed Defendants to file an affidavit supporting the 19 reasonableness of the fees they won, and gave Plaintiffs the opportunity to object. (ECF 20 No. 176.) Defendants filed their affidavit (ECF No. 179), and Plaintiffs filed their objections 21 (ECF No. 180).1 As further explained below, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections and 22 will award Defendants their requested fees. 23 Defendants support the reasonableness of their fees request with affidavits from 24 their counsel, copies of spreadsheets reflecting the tasks performed by their counsel and 25 the amounts charged for them, and argument directed to the factors described in LR 54- 26 14 and Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat. Bank, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (Nev. 1969). (ECF Nos. 179, 27 28 1Defendants then filed a response to Plaintiffs’ objections. (ECF No. 181.) 2 Defendants’ overall contention that their requested fees are reasonable based on their 3 submissions. 4 Plaintiffs first object that Defendants had partners do work that associates could 5 have done resulting in overbilling. (ECF No. 180 at 3, 5-7.) Plaintiffs presented this 6 argument to the Ninth Circuit in the appellate proceedings stemming from this case, and 7 the Ninth Circuit rejected it. (ECF No. 183 at 2-3.) The Court rejects this argument for the 8 same reason the Ninth Circuit rejected it. (Id.) 9 And that brings the Court to Plaintiffs’ broader objection, which is that Defendants 10 overbilled by spending an unreasonable amount of time on the various tasks documented 11 in the spreadsheets they submitted for the Court’s review. (ECF No. 180 at 4-6.) But 12 Plaintiffs present no standard or caselaw to judge whether the amount of time Defendants 13 spent was unreasonable, nor do Plaintiffs present any sufficiently specific argument as to 14 why any individual time entries they call out in their objection were unreasonable. The 15 Court will not scrutinize each one of Defendants’ time entries where, as here, Plaintiffs 16 have not even specifically argued why particular entries are unreasonable. 17 In sum, the Court overrules Plaintiffs’ objections and will award Defendants their 18 requested fees. 19 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several cases 20 not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 21 that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the issues before 22 the Court. 23 It is therefore ordered that Defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees from Plaintiffs 24 in the amount of $383,850.80. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants on their 2 || requested fees accordingly and close this case. To be clear, this will be a supplemental 3 || judgment that does not affect the previously entered judgment (ECF No. 130) in any way. 4 DATED THIS 7* Day of August 2023.

6 □ MIRANDA M. DU 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28