Najarian Holdings LLC v. CoreVest American Finance Lender LLC

Opinion

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

v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES LENDER LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 93 Defendant.

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