PharMerica Mountain, LLC v. RCSRP Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 28, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00732
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 PharMerica Mountain, LLC d/b/a Case No.: 2:20-cv-00732-JAD-EJY 4 PharMerica,

5 Plaintiff

6 v. Order Granting Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 7 RCSRP Corporation d/b/a Desert Hills PostAcute & Rehabilitation Center, and [ECF No. 23] 8 MMMT Corporation,

9 Defendants

10 Last year, I granted plaintiff PharMerica Mountain, LLC default judgment on its breach- 11 of-contract and breach-of-implied-contract claims against defendants RCSRP Corporation and 12 MMMT Corporation, respectively.1 In that default-judgment order, I “conclude[d] that 13 PharMerica is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees under its express contract with 14 RCSRP but not under its implied contract with MMMT.”2 Because PharMerica “intend[ed] to 15 separately file a motion for legal fees and costs” under this district’s Local Rule 54-14, I did not 16 award it those fees at that time.3 PharMerica now seeks attorneys’ fees and costs in the total 17 amount of $32,561.60 from both defendants.4 I find its requested fees reasonable under the 18 19

20 1 ECF No. 21. 21 2 Id. at 9; see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.010(1) (“The compensation of an attorney and counselor for his or her services is governed by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by 22 law.”). 3 ECF No. 21 at 9 (citing ECF No. 18 at 9; ECF No. 18-4; ECF No. 18-6). 23 4 ECF No. 23 at 2. This total amount is the sum of $31,519 (attorneys’ fees) and $1,042.60 (costs). Id. 1 factors laid out by the Nevada Supreme Court in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank,5 so I 2 grant its motion in part, awarding fees the itemized costs ordinarily allowed under this court’s 3 local rules against RCSRP only. 4 Discussion

5 Federal courts sitting in diversity determine the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees 6 awarded under state law.6 Under Nevada law, “the method upon which a reasonable fee is 7 determined is subject to the discretion of the court, which is tempered only by reason and 8 fairness.”7 One permissible method is the lodestar approach, which involves “multiplying the 9 number of hours reasonably spent on the case by a reasonable hourly rate.”8 10 Nevada courts must also review the requested amount “in light of the factors set forth in” 11 the Supreme Court of Nevada's decision in Brunzell.9 They include: 12 (1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, his training, education, experience, professional standing, and skill; 13 (2) the character of the work to be done: its difficulty, its intricacy, 14 its importance, time, and skill required, the responsibility imposed and the prominence and character of the parties where they affect 15 the importance of the litigation;

16 (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill, time and attention given to the work; 17 (4) the result: whether the attorney was successful and what 18 benefits were derived.10

19 5 Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (Nev. 1969) (listing factors relevant to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees). 20 6 Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995). 21 7 Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 124 P.3d 530, 548–49 (Nev. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). 22 8 Id. at 549 & n.98 (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 9 Haley v. Dist. Ct., 273 P.3d 855, 860 (Nev. 2012) (citing Brunzell, 455 P.2d at 33). 10 Brunzell, 455 P.2d at 34. 1 Finally, Local Rule 54-14 requires any application for attorneys’ fees to include, as relevant here, 2 an attorney affidavit, “[a] reasonable itemization and description of the work performed[,]” and 3 “[a] brief summary” of 13 categories of information designed to elicit more information about 4 the case and the work that the attorneys performed.11

5 Here, PharMerica requests the $31,519 in attorneys’ fees incurred in collecting payment 6 on its contract with RCSRP, including all work completed related to this litigation.12 PharMerica 7 includes affidavits and billing records showing that eight attorneys—including a local 8 bankruptcy-law specialist—and a paralegal worked on this matter at rates between $145 and 9 $575 per hour.13 PharMerica arrives at the lodestar amount by multiplying those rates by the 10 118.4 hours worked.14 11 I have reviewed PharMerica’s motion, declarations, and billing records in light of both 12 the Brunzell factors and Local Rule 54-14. I find the rates charged and amount of work 13 performed to be reasonable based on the local legal market and circumstances of this case. I also 14 find that the request for fees is properly supported by evidence. So I grant the motion in part and

15 award PharMerica the $31,519 in attorneys’ fees it incurred while litigating this matter. But I 16 deny the motion in part because PharMerica may only seek satisfaction of these fees from one of 17 the two defendants, RCSRP. As to its request for costs, PharMerica’s motion seeks $1,042.60,15 18 but those costs include numerous line items not ordinarily allowed under this district’s local 19 20

21 11 L.R. 54-14 (a)–(b). 12 ECF No. 23 at 12. 22 13 ECF No. 23-4. 23 14 Id. 15 ECF No. 23 at 12. so I award PharMerica $710.47 in costs only. I disallow costs related to computer research 2\| and pro hac vice admission.'® 3 Conclusion 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that PharMerica Mountain, LLC’s motion for attorneys’ 5|| fees [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. J award PharMerica 6|| $32,229.47 in attorneys’ fees and costs against defendant RCSRP Corporation only. The Clerk 7|| of the Court is directed to ENTER AN AMENDED JUDGMENT accordingly. 8

USS. District i Dee Dorsey 10 February 28, 2022 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 6 See LR. 54-11(f)}-(g) (computer-research fees and pro hac vice admission fees not ordinarily allowed).