Masuda-Cleveland v. Life Insurance Company of America

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

MARNIE MASUDA- ) CIVIL NO. 16-00057 LEK-WRP CLEVELAND, ) ) FINDINGS AND Plaintiff, ) RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT ) IN PART AND DENY IN PART vs. ) PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ) ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ) OF NORTH AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for an award of additional attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuing payment of the District Court’s Order Denying Defendant’s Objections; and Adopting, as Modified, The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation to Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (ECF No. 160). See ECF No. 167. Defendant has filed a response to Plaintiff’s request. See ECF No. 169. After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the record in this action, and the relevant legal authority, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s request be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as detailed below. BACKGROUND Because the parties are familiar with the background in this case, the

Court does not repeat it here except as necessary to address Plaintiff’s request for additional attorneys’ fees. On August 19, 2021, the District Court awarded Plaintiff $364,946.80 in attorneys’ fees and $3,472.76 in nontaxable costs, for a

total award of $368,419.56. See ECF No. 160 at 9. The District Court ordered Defendant to pay the award no later than September 20, 2021. See id. When Defendant failed to timely pay the award, Plaintiff contacted the District Court requesting a status conference; the District Court then directed

Plaintiff’s counsel to request a status conference before the undersigned. See ECF No. 162. This Court held a status conference on October 7, 2021. See ECF No. 165. As stated on the record, the Court ordered Defendant to comply with the

District Court’s fee award order by making immediate payment to Plaintiff, requiring that all information to facilitate payment by wire transfer be exchanged that day (October 7, 2021), and that Defendant make payment to Plaintiff’s counsel by wire transfer by the next day’s close of business (October 8, 2021). See ECF

Nos. 165, 166. The Court also permitted Plaintiff to submit any additional fees and costs incurred because of pursuing payment. See id. The present request followed. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests an additional award of $4,655.81, consisting of $3,360 incurred by Mr. Metzger (4.80 hours at $700 per hour) and $1,295.81 incurred by Mr. Varady (2.751 hours at $450 per hour, plus Hawaii General Excise

Tax).2 See ECF Nos. 167-1, 167-2. Defendant’s response notes that there was duplication of work between two attorneys and billing for conversations between two attorneys, and further notes that $1,297.50 of the requested fees were incurred

after this Court ordered Defendant to comply immediately with the District Court’s fee award. See ECF No. 169 at 2-3. As to duplication of work, this Court previously stated (see ECF No. 154 at 17-18) that, generally, two attorneys cannot bill for attending the same

meeting. See Robinson v. Plourde, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1092, 1099 (D. Haw. 2010) (citing Brandon E. v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 4602533, at *3 (D. Haw. Oct. 16, 2008)). Accordingly, “when a party’s counsel meet with one other, the Court

deducts the duplicative time billed.” Id. Based on the Court’s review of the submitted timesheets, the Court deducts .4 hours of Mr. Varady’s time for duplicative entries for communicating with Mr. Metzger.3

1 The relevant timesheet indicates Mr. Varady spent 3.15 hours total, but has not charged for .40 of those hours, such that the total request as to Mr. Varady is for 2.75 hours. See ECF No. 167-1 at 1. 2 This Court determined the reasonable hourly rates for Mr. Metzger and Mr. Varady were $700 and $450 respectively, and the District Court overruled Defendant’s objections to those rates. See ECF No. 160 at 5-7, 9. 3 Mr. Varady’s duplicative time entries were on 9/30/2021 (0.2 hours) and 10/7/2021 (0.2 hours). See ECF No. 167-1 at 1. The Court declines to deduct any additional time based on Defendant’s general observation regarding the amount of time billed after the

October 7, 2021 status conference. Defendant’s failure to comply with the District Court’s order resulted in this Court having to order immediate compliance, which necessarily obligated Plaintiff’s counsel to expend additional time coordinating

receipt of a time-sensitive payment. The Court therefore concludes the requested time is reasonable, except as to Mr. Metzger’s communication with the Court regarding the form of any additional request for fees, which the Court concludes should be deducted as a clerical task. 4 See Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906,

921 (9th Cir. 2009); see also ECF No. 154 at 13 (deducting time requested for communications with Court as clerical). The Court therefore finds that the following additional attorneys’ fees

are reasonable: ATTORNEY HOURS RATE TOTAL Jeffrey C. Metzger, Esq. 4.65 $700 $3,220.00 Carl M. Varady, Esq. 2.356 $450 $1,057.50 General Excise Tax (Mr. Varady’s fees only) 4.712% $49.83 TOTAL $4,327.33

4 Mr. Metzger’s time entry for a clerical task was on 10/14/2021 (.2 hours). See ECF No. 167-2 at 2. 5 4.8 hours requested - 0.2 hours for a clerical task = 4.6 hours. 6 2.75 hours requested - 0.4 hours for duplicative work = 2.35 hours. CONCLUSION In accordance with the foregoing, the Court FINDS AND RECOMMENDS that the district judge GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART Plaintiff's request for additional attomeys’ fees and AWARD Plaintiff an additional $4,327.33 in attorneys’ fees. IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED. DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, OCTOBER 26, 2021. a a yp

Wes Reber Porter ah > “a United States Magistrate Judge hi Sait ee

MASUDA-CLEVELAND v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; CIVIL NO. 16-00057 LEK-WRP; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ATTORNEYS’ FEES