RSA-Tumon, LLC v. Pitt County Memorial Hospital, Inc.

Opinion

7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM

8 RSA-TUMON, LLC, CIVIL CASE NO. 20-00025 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. ORDER RE ATTORNEY FEES 11 AND COSTS PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, 12 INC. AND SHERIF ANTOUN PHILIPS,

13 Defendants.

14 15 When this court granted the Motion for Remand, the court also granted Plaintiff’s request 16 for attorney fees and reimbursement of costs. See Order at 4-5, ECF No. 15. The court then 17 ordered Plaintiff and Defendant Sherif Antoun Philips to meet and confer about the fees and 18 costs incurred by Plaintiff in defending against the removal. Id. at 5. The parties were not able to 19 agree on a stipulated amount and therefore, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief with supporting 20 exhibits and declaration. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff seeks a total amount of $4,577.25 for attorney 21 fees and a total amount of $194.84 of reimbursable costs. Id. at 3-4. 22 In response, Defendant Philips argues that the attorney fees are “without verification”, it 23 is a “randan calculation”, and that Plaintiff was “supposed to write the time when they started till 24 they finished.” ECF No. 21 at 10. The court finds Defendant Philips’ arguments to be without 1 merit. 2 The Supreme Court has found that “[t]he most useful starting point for determining the 3 amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation 4 multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). This is 5 known as the “lodestar figure,” which is a “presumptively reasonable fee.” Gonzalez v. City of 6 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013). As the Supreme Court has previously held, the 7 presumption is a “strong” one. Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 552 (2010). The 8 court may then adjust the lodestar figure upward or downward based on the factors set forth in

9 Kerr that are not subsumed in the lodestar calculation.1 Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1202. 10 The party applying for fees “bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and 11 documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. The 12 party opposing the fees “has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the 13 district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts 14 asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 15 1397-98 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 Time is reasonably expended on the litigation when it is “useful and of a type ordinarily 17 necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation.” Webb v. Bd. Of Educ. of Dyer 18 County, 471 U.S. 234, 242 (1985). Counsel has the burden to demonstrate that the number of

19 hours spent was reasonably necessary to the litigation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. Further, counsel 20 bears the burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours claimed to have been

21 1 The Kerr factors are as follows: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due 22 to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, 23 reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 24 F.2d 67, 7 0 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 950 (1976). 1 expended. Id. Local Rule 54(c)(2)(A) requires that there must be adequate description of the 2 services rendered, so that the court can evaluate the reasonableness of the requested fees. 3 Here, Plaintiff provided an itemized billing of the hours worked that includes a 4 description of the work performed and by which attorney. See Decl. of Brennan, ECF No. 18-1 5 fn. 12 at 4; Ex. 2 to Decl. of Brennan, ECF No. 18-1 at 11-12. The court is satisfied with the 6 detailed billing. 7 The associate attorney, Brennan, spent a total of 20.1 hours on the case while the 8 supervising attorney, Arriola, spent a total of 2.1 hours reviewing Brennan’s work. The actual

9 work done by the two attorneys on defending against the removal was a total of 16.65 hours. 10 That is approximately just two days’ worth of work, which is not excessive and thus, this court 11 finds these hours to be reasonable. Further, the actual work done on the attorney fees was a total 12 of 5.55 hours. This is a little over half a day’s worth of work and again, the court does not find 13 this to be excessive and is in fact reasonable. 14 As to whether the rates are reasonable, an established standard for determining a 15 reasonable hourly rate is the “rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by 16 attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 17 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Brennan’s rate was at $195 per hour in 2020 and 18 as of March 1, 2021, was $200 per hour. See Brennan Decl. at 2, ECF No. 18-1. Brennan has

19 approximately four years of legal experience. Id. Arriola’s rate is at $300 per hour and has over 20 30 years of legal experience. Id. at 3. 21 The court had previously found that a rate of $250 is reasonable for Guam attorneys. See 22 Davis v. Guam, 2019 WL 1512266 (D. Guam Apr. 8, 2019). The court had also previously found 23

24 2 The chart contained in footnote 1 of Brennan’s Declaration shows a total amount of $910.00. See Brennan Decl. at 4, ECF No. 18-1. This number is incorrect. It should be $1,110.00. Nonetheless, this does not increase the calculation, because the requested amount still adds up to the same number. 1 || that a rate of $350 per hour with more experienced attorneys is reasonable. See Paeste v. Guam, 2 WL 6254669 (D. Guam Dec. 3, 2013), aff'd sub nom. Paeste v. Gov't of Guam, 624 F. 3 || App'x 488 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the requested rates of $195, $200, and $300 in the 4 || present case are all reasonable. 5 Defendant Philips has not met his burden of rebuttal. There was no evidence submitted to 6 || this court to challenge the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours and rates charged. 7 || Defendant Philips’ argument that Plaintiff was “supposed to write the time when they started till 8 || they finished”, ECF No. 21 at 10, is simply not supported by any legal authority. 9 Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the attorney fees and reimbursable costs 10 || requested by Plaintiff are reasonable and shall be awarded as follows: 11 1. $4,577.25 in attorney fees; and 12 2. $193.34? in reimbursable costs. 13 The total award on Plaintiffs attorney fees and costs is $4,770.59. 14 SO ORDERED. I5 /s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood 16 ne. Chief Judge Dated: Jul 07, 2021 ae A

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 II Plaintiff requests the amount of $194.84. ECF No. 18, at 4. This amount is not supported by Exhibit 2. See Ex. 2 to Brennan’s Decl. at 13, ECF No. 18-1. The sum of $2.00, $0.50, $2.00, and $188.84 is $193.34.