Najarian Holdings LLC v. CoreVest American Finance Lender LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 NAJARIAN HOLDINGS LLC, et al., Case No. 20-cv-00799-PJH 8 Plaintiffs,

9 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 10 COREVEST AMERICAN FINANCE LENDER LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 93 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs came on for hearing 15 before this court on January 27, 2022. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel, Jeff 16 Reich. Defendant appeared through its counsel, Emil Petrossian. Having read the 17 papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant 18 legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion 19 for attorneys’ fees and DENIES defendant’s request for non-taxable costs, for the 20 reasons stated at the hearing. 21 “District courts must calculate awards for attorneys’ fees using the ‘lodestar’ 22 method.” Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1149 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001). “The 23 ‘lodestar’ is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably 24 expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 25 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Ferland, 244 F.3d at 1149 n.4). 26 Here, defendant provided attorney time records and invoices sent to the client 27 supporting the reasonableness of the hours spent litigating the case. Plaintiffs failed to 1 range of Northern District cases supporting the reasonableness of the hourly rates sought 2 by counsel. Plaintiffs cited wholly inapplicable cases in response and provided no other 3 evidence that the rates were unreasonable. Plaintiffs’ argument that the attorneys’ fee 4 award sought by defendant contravenes the Eighth Amendment is unavailing—an 5 attorneys’ fee award, not payable to a sovereign, does not constitute a civil penalty. 6 Plaintiffs’ additional argument that the award sought by defendant is simply too great fails 7 in light of the mandate that the court apply the lodestar calculation. Therefore, the court 8 GRANTS defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $692,079.50. 9 When sitting in its diversity jurisdiction, a federal court must follow the substantive 10 law as derived from the state’s statutes and the state’s highest court decisions. See 11 Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir.1994). California disallows 12 certain items as costs, including postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except 13 for exhibits. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1033.5. Here, defendant failed to support its claim for 14 non-taxable costs, and it withdrew its claim for the costs at the hearing. The court thus 15 DENIES defendant’s request for non-taxable costs in the amount of $1,548.67. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: January 28, 2022 18 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 19 United States District Judge

21 22 23 24 25 26 27