1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CALEB AVERY T’BEAR, Case No. 17-cv-00796-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO 9 v. ENFORCE JUDGMENT
10 BARRY FORMAN, Re: Dkt. No. 302 Defendant. 11
12 13 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees to enforce the judgment. (Dkt. 14 No. 302.)1 After carefully considering the parties’ briefing, including Defendant’s supplemental 15 filing, (see Dkt. Nos. 307, 308), the Court GRANTS the motion in part. 16 BACKGROUND 17 In February 2020, following a bench trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of 18 Defendant and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s counterclaims and awarded 19 damages to Defendant in the amount of $1,410,895.00. (Dkt. No. 240; see Dkt. No. 235.) The 20 judgment also rescinded the December 2011 Memorandum of Understanding and restored 21 Defendant’s direct security interest in the FairWay IP. (Dkt. No. 240.) Plaintiff filed a notice of 22 appeal of the judgment, which the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely 23 filed. (Dkt. No. 259); t’Bear v. Forman, No. 20-15619 (9th Cir. June 26, 2020) (order). In June 24 2020, the Court awarded Defendant $2,590,863.40 in attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No. 258.) Plaintiff 25 appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the award. (Dkt. No. 294); t’Bear v. Forman, No. 20- 26 16348 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2021) (order). 27 1 After the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal of the judgment and while his appeal of 2 the fee award was pending, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order nunc pro tunc to change the filing 3 date of his notice of appeal of the judgment. This Court denied the motion in August 2020. (Dkt. 4 No. 266.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that order, which the Ninth Circuit dismissed for 5 lack of jurisdiction as untimely filed. (Dkt. No. 286); t’Bear v. Forman, No. 20-16742 (9th Cir. 6 Nov. 23, 2020) (order). 7 In August 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from (1) the August 2020 order denying 8 his request for an order nunc pro tunc and (2) the February 2020 judgment. This Court denied the 9 motion in September 2021. (Dkt. No. 295.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which remains 10 pending in the Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. Nos. 299, 300.) In November 2021, the Court awarded 11 Defendant $48,465.00 in attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s motion for relief. 12 (Dkt. No. 301.) 13 According to Defendant, Plaintiff has not paid the $1,410,895.00 judgment or 14 $2,639,328.40 combined attorneys’ fees awards. Defendant moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and California Code of Civil Procedure § 685.040. He 16 seeks fees in the amount of $571,123.00 incurred to enforce the judgment over the past two years 17 by defending against Plaintiff’s appeals and by conducting a foreclosure sale on the FairWay IP, 18 the collateral that secured Defendant’s loans to Plaintiff. Defendant’s request excludes the work 19 underlying both of the Court’s earlier fee awards. (See Dkt. No. 302-1 ¶¶ 20, 31.) 20 DISCUSSION 21 I. Attorneys’ Fees to Enforce the Judgment 22 Motions for attorneys’ fees to enforce the judgment are governed by Rule 69(a), which 23 provides that “proceedings supplementary to and in aid of a judgment or execution [] must accord 24 with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the 25 extent it applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1); see Carnes v. Zamani, 488 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (9th 26 Cir. 2007). California procedural law applies here because there is no applicable federal statute. 27 See Carnes, 488 F.3d at 1060. California substantive law applies because this is a diversity action. 1 California’s Section 685.040 provides that a “judgment creditor is entitled to the 2 reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 685.040. The 3 statute is “intended to address the problem unique to a claim for postjudgment fees in actions 4 based on contract.” Jaffe v. Pacelli, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423, 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (cleaned up). 5 A Section 685.040 motion must be filed before the underlying judgment is fully satisfied. Carnes, 6 488 F.3d at 1060. Defendant’s motion is timely in this regard. Two additional elements are 7 required: “(1) the fees must have been incurred to ‘enforce’ a judgment; and (2) the underlying 8 judgment had to include an award for attorney fees pursuant to [Section 1033.5(a)(10)(A)], which 9 provides that attorney fees may be awarded when authorized by contract.” Jaffe, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 10 at 429. 11 A. Enforce the Judgment 12 As to the first element, Defendant argues that it enforced the judgment by defending 13 against Plaintiff’s appeals and by conducting a foreclosure sale on the FairWay IP. 14 1. Appeals 15 Defendant’s work on Plaintiff’s appeal of the June 2020 attorneys’ fees award (see Dkt. 16 Nos. 258, 294) incurred fees to “enforce” the judgment. See Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., No. 11- 17 cv-05452-EDL, 2019 WL 12517082, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2019) (awarding Section 685.040 18 attorneys’ fees incurred from appeal of attorneys’ fees award in underlying judgment); Rosen v. 19 LegacyQuest, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 7–8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (“[S]tatutory fee provisions . . . 20 include fees on appeal unless the statute expressly states otherwise.”). So too for Defendant’s fees 21 incurred from Plaintiff’s appeal of the judgment, (see Dkt. Nos. 240, 259), motions challenging 22 the judgment, (see Dkt. Nos. 266, 295), and fully resolved appeal of this Court’s order on one of 23 those motions, (see Dkt. Nos. 285, 286). Imperial Bank v. Pim Elec., Inc., 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432, 24 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (“Statutory authorization for the recovery of attorney fees incurred in 25 trial court proceedings necessarily includes attorney fees incurred on appeal unless the statute 26 specifically provides otherwise.”); see also Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest-Tek Interactive Ent. Ltd., No. 27 2:19-CV-04980-AB (SKx), 2022 WL 258494, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (fees incurred from 1 79 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (same); Reveles v. Toyota by the Bay, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 543, 552 (Cal. Ct. App. 2 1995) (fees incurred from appeal of judgment), abrogated on other grounds by Gavaldon v. 3 DaimlerChrysler Corp., 690 P.3d 752 (Cal. 2004). And so too for Defendant’s fees incurred in 4 preparing the instant fee motion. See Bruckman v Parliament Escrow Corp., 235 Cal. Rptr. 813, 5 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (“[W]hen an amount of attorney’s fees is statutorily authorized, the 6 reasonable expenses of preparing the application for fees should be included in the award.”). 7 Not so, however, for Defendant’s fees incurred from Plaintiff’s pending appeal of this 8 Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for relief from a judgment or order.2 (See Dkt. Nos. 299, 9 300.) The Ninth Circuit retains jurisdiction and could reverse this Court’s order; if it does, 10 Defendant’s work in unsuccessfully defending Plaintiff’s appeal will not have been necessary to 11 enforce the judgment. See MST Farms v. C.G. 1464, 251 Cal. Rptr. 72, 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) 12 (“[I]n a proper case the trial court has jurisdiction to award, as an element of costs under section 13 1717, attorney fees incurred by the prevailing party in successfully defending or prosecuting an 14 appeal.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, it would be premature to determine that fees for such 15 work were incurred to enforce the judgment. 16 2.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CALEB AVERY T’BEAR, Case No. 17-cv-00796-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO 9 v. ENFORCE JUDGMENT
10 BARRY FORMAN, Re: Dkt. No. 302 Defendant. 11
12 13 Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees to enforce the judgment. (Dkt. 14 No. 302.)1 After carefully considering the parties’ briefing, including Defendant’s supplemental 15 filing, (see Dkt. Nos. 307, 308), the Court GRANTS the motion in part. 16 BACKGROUND 17 In February 2020, following a bench trial, the Court entered judgment in favor of 18 Defendant and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s counterclaims and awarded 19 damages to Defendant in the amount of $1,410,895.00. (Dkt. No. 240; see Dkt. No. 235.) The 20 judgment also rescinded the December 2011 Memorandum of Understanding and restored 21 Defendant’s direct security interest in the FairWay IP. (Dkt. No. 240.) Plaintiff filed a notice of 22 appeal of the judgment, which the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely 23 filed. (Dkt. No. 259); t’Bear v. Forman, No. 20-15619 (9th Cir. June 26, 2020) (order). In June 24 2020, the Court awarded Defendant $2,590,863.40 in attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No. 258.) Plaintiff 25 appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the award. (Dkt. No. 294); t’Bear v. Forman, No. 20- 26 16348 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2021) (order). 27 1 After the Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal of the judgment and while his appeal of 2 the fee award was pending, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order nunc pro tunc to change the filing 3 date of his notice of appeal of the judgment. This Court denied the motion in August 2020. (Dkt. 4 No. 266.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that order, which the Ninth Circuit dismissed for 5 lack of jurisdiction as untimely filed. (Dkt. No. 286); t’Bear v. Forman, No. 20-16742 (9th Cir. 6 Nov. 23, 2020) (order). 7 In August 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from (1) the August 2020 order denying 8 his request for an order nunc pro tunc and (2) the February 2020 judgment. This Court denied the 9 motion in September 2021. (Dkt. No. 295.) Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which remains 10 pending in the Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. Nos. 299, 300.) In November 2021, the Court awarded 11 Defendant $48,465.00 in attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s motion for relief. 12 (Dkt. No. 301.) 13 According to Defendant, Plaintiff has not paid the $1,410,895.00 judgment or 14 $2,639,328.40 combined attorneys’ fees awards. Defendant moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and California Code of Civil Procedure § 685.040. He 16 seeks fees in the amount of $571,123.00 incurred to enforce the judgment over the past two years 17 by defending against Plaintiff’s appeals and by conducting a foreclosure sale on the FairWay IP, 18 the collateral that secured Defendant’s loans to Plaintiff. Defendant’s request excludes the work 19 underlying both of the Court’s earlier fee awards. (See Dkt. No. 302-1 ¶¶ 20, 31.) 20 DISCUSSION 21 I. Attorneys’ Fees to Enforce the Judgment 22 Motions for attorneys’ fees to enforce the judgment are governed by Rule 69(a), which 23 provides that “proceedings supplementary to and in aid of a judgment or execution [] must accord 24 with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the 25 extent it applies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1); see Carnes v. Zamani, 488 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (9th 26 Cir. 2007). California procedural law applies here because there is no applicable federal statute. 27 See Carnes, 488 F.3d at 1060. California substantive law applies because this is a diversity action. 1 California’s Section 685.040 provides that a “judgment creditor is entitled to the 2 reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.” Cal. Code Civ. P. § 685.040. The 3 statute is “intended to address the problem unique to a claim for postjudgment fees in actions 4 based on contract.” Jaffe v. Pacelli, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423, 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (cleaned up). 5 A Section 685.040 motion must be filed before the underlying judgment is fully satisfied. Carnes, 6 488 F.3d at 1060. Defendant’s motion is timely in this regard. Two additional elements are 7 required: “(1) the fees must have been incurred to ‘enforce’ a judgment; and (2) the underlying 8 judgment had to include an award for attorney fees pursuant to [Section 1033.5(a)(10)(A)], which 9 provides that attorney fees may be awarded when authorized by contract.” Jaffe, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 10 at 429. 11 A. Enforce the Judgment 12 As to the first element, Defendant argues that it enforced the judgment by defending 13 against Plaintiff’s appeals and by conducting a foreclosure sale on the FairWay IP. 14 1. Appeals 15 Defendant’s work on Plaintiff’s appeal of the June 2020 attorneys’ fees award (see Dkt. 16 Nos. 258, 294) incurred fees to “enforce” the judgment. See Logtale, Ltd. v. IKOR, Inc., No. 11- 17 cv-05452-EDL, 2019 WL 12517082, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2019) (awarding Section 685.040 18 attorneys’ fees incurred from appeal of attorneys’ fees award in underlying judgment); Rosen v. 19 LegacyQuest, 170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 7–8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (“[S]tatutory fee provisions . . . 20 include fees on appeal unless the statute expressly states otherwise.”). So too for Defendant’s fees 21 incurred from Plaintiff’s appeal of the judgment, (see Dkt. Nos. 240, 259), motions challenging 22 the judgment, (see Dkt. Nos. 266, 295), and fully resolved appeal of this Court’s order on one of 23 those motions, (see Dkt. Nos. 285, 286). Imperial Bank v. Pim Elec., Inc., 39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432, 24 444 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (“Statutory authorization for the recovery of attorney fees incurred in 25 trial court proceedings necessarily includes attorney fees incurred on appeal unless the statute 26 specifically provides otherwise.”); see also Nomadix, Inc. v. Guest-Tek Interactive Ent. Ltd., No. 27 2:19-CV-04980-AB (SKx), 2022 WL 258494, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (fees incurred from 1 79 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (same); Reveles v. Toyota by the Bay, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 543, 552 (Cal. Ct. App. 2 1995) (fees incurred from appeal of judgment), abrogated on other grounds by Gavaldon v. 3 DaimlerChrysler Corp., 690 P.3d 752 (Cal. 2004). And so too for Defendant’s fees incurred in 4 preparing the instant fee motion. See Bruckman v Parliament Escrow Corp., 235 Cal. Rptr. 813, 5 819 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (“[W]hen an amount of attorney’s fees is statutorily authorized, the 6 reasonable expenses of preparing the application for fees should be included in the award.”). 7 Not so, however, for Defendant’s fees incurred from Plaintiff’s pending appeal of this 8 Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for relief from a judgment or order.2 (See Dkt. Nos. 299, 9 300.) The Ninth Circuit retains jurisdiction and could reverse this Court’s order; if it does, 10 Defendant’s work in unsuccessfully defending Plaintiff’s appeal will not have been necessary to 11 enforce the judgment. See MST Farms v. C.G. 1464, 251 Cal. Rptr. 72, 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) 12 (“[I]n a proper case the trial court has jurisdiction to award, as an element of costs under section 13 1717, attorney fees incurred by the prevailing party in successfully defending or prosecuting an 14 appeal.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, it would be premature to determine that fees for such 15 work were incurred to enforce the judgment. 16 2. Foreclosure 17 Defendant’s foreclosure on the FairWay IP, which secured Defendant’s loans to Plaintiff, 18 incurred fees to “enforce” the judgment. Plaintiff has not paid the $1,410,895.00 judgment issued 19 by this Court. Accordingly, Defendant’s work to perfect his interest in and foreclose upon the 20 FairWay IP was “reasonable and necessary” to satisfy the judgment. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 685.040. 21 Defendant, the only bidder at the foreclosure sale, bid $100,000.00 for all the collateral in the form 22 of a $100,000.00 credit against Defendant’s secured claim; his bid was declared the highest and 23 the collateral was sold to him. (Dkt. No. 302-1 ¶ 29.) Defendant also opposed an application for 24 temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, filed by another creditor in a California 25 court, which sought to prevent the foreclosure sale. Although Defendant has not cited a case 26 directly on point, courts have awarded fees for comparable work. See Nomadix, 2022 WL 27 1 258494, at *1 (judgment creditor “enforce[d] and collect[ed]” fee award by “conducting discovery 2 to identify financial assets to satisfy the award”); Jaffe, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 423, 429 n.8, 431 3 (judgment creditor filed adversary bankruptcy proceeding to prevent debtor from “sabotag[ing]” 4 judgment in bankruptcy). Thus, fees for opposing the competing creditor are awardable as fees 5 incurred in enforcing the judgment. 6 B. Fees Awarded in Underlying Judgment 7 The second element of Section 685.040 is met. The Court awarded, and the Ninth Circuit 8 affirmed, attorneys’ fees incurred prior to the judgment pursuant to California Civil Code § 1717. 9 (See Dkt. Nos. 258, 294); see also Logtale, 2019 WL 12517082, at *3 (concluding that party could 10 recover attorneys’ fees to enforce the judgment because the court had awarded Section 1717 11 attorneys’ fees, even though the award was not in the judgment itself). Section 1717 attorneys’ 12 fees are allowable under Section 1033.5(a)(10)(A), and thus under Section 685.040. Cal. Code 13 Civ. P. § 1033.5(c)(5)(B); see Carnes, 488 F.3d at 1060; Jaffe, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 429. 14 * * * 15 Both required elements are met to award attorneys’ fees under Section 685.040. See Jaffe, 16 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 429. 17 II. Reasonable Hours and Rates 18 Having determined that fees are warranted, the Court turns to calculating the lodestar. See 19 PLCM Grp. v. Drexler, 997 P.2d 511, 518–19 (Cal. 2000). The lodestar is “the number of hours 20 reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . prevailing in the community for 21 similar work.” Id. at 518; see In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th 22 Cir. 2011). “[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and 23 documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 24 424, 433 (1983). Defendant requests $571,123.00 in fees, representing 1,041.45 hours of work by 25 attorneys at four firms.3 (Dkt. No. 302-1 ¶ 20; Dkt. No. 302-2 ¶ 18; Dkt. No. 302-3 ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 26
27 3 $417,073.00 for Farmer Brownstein Jaeger Goldstein Klein & Siegel LLP; $84,693.00 for 1 302-4 ¶¶ 6–7.) Plaintiff argues unpersuasively that Defendant and counsel’s conduct was illegal, 2 but does not make specific objections to time expended or hourly rates. (See Dkt. No. 303.) 3 A. Hours 4 The number of hours expended should not exceed the number of hours reasonable 5 competent counsel would bill for similar services. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Courts may reduce 6 the hours expended “where documentation of the hours is inadequate; if the case was overstaffed 7 and hours are duplicated; if the hours expended are deemed excessive or otherwise unnecessary.” 8 Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 Defendant submits declarations of attorneys from the four firms attesting to the hours 10 worked by specific attorneys, and redacted invoices reflecting those hours. This documentation is 11 sufficient to support his request for fees. See Steiny & Co., Inc. v. Cal. Elec. Supply Co., 79 Cal. 12 App. 4th 285, 293 (2000). The declarations and corresponding invoices are detailed and 13 demonstrate that the hours expended were reasonable given the complexity of the appeals, post- 14 judgment motion practice, and FairWay IP issues. That Defendant has already paid for the great 15 majority of these hours is an additional indication they were reasonably spent. (Dkt. No. 302-1 ¶ 16 19; Dkt. No. 302-2 ¶ 19; Dkt. No. 302-3 ¶ 7; Dkt. No. 302-4 ¶ 9; see Dkt. No. 258 at 12 (noting 17 same in June 2020 attorneys’ fees award).) 18 It was generally reasonable for Defendant to engage three firms outside of his lead counsel 19 for targeted work in their areas of expertise. (See Dkt. No. 302-1 ¶¶ 32–35.) That said, a 20 reduction is warranted to the extent the work of counsel from each firm necessarily required 21 review of work performed by counsel from other firms based on overlapping issues. See Hadley v. 22 Krepel, 214 Cal. Rptr. 461, 464 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (finding plaintiff’s objections appropriate as 23 to fees “incurred as a result of becoming new counsel and acquainting subsequent counsel with the 24 case”). Accordingly, the Court reduces the lodestar by 3% to $553,989.31.4 Additionally, the 25 Court’s June 2020 attorneys’ fees award covered work performed through April 30, 2020, when 26 Defendant filed the reply to his initial motion for attorneys’ fees. (See Dkt. No. 258 at 5.) The 27 1 current motion includes work performed by lead counsel’s firm on April 30, 2020, including 2 reply-related work, which the Court excludes as already awarded. (See Dkt. No. 302-1 at 20.) 3 This reduces the lodestar by $7,432.50,5 to $546,556.81. Finally, the Court reduces the lodestar 4 by $1,012.50 for work performed (by Farmer) on a pending appeal, as discussed above, to 5 $545,544.31.6 6 B. Rates 7 A reasonable hourly rate is calculated “according to the prevailing market rates in the 8 relevant community” and should be “in line with [the rates] prevailing in the community for 9 similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” 10 Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 557 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); see 11 Children’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Bonta, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 629, 661–62 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (same 12 under California law). “[T]he relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.” 13 Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). Defendant requests the 14 following rates: 15 Charles Jaeger Graduated 1989 $600-675 16 David M. Goldstein Graduated 1989 $600-675 17 Kerry C. Klein Graduated 1998 $600-675 18 Jim Smith Senior Paralegal $175-200 19 Cullen Conboy Case Assistant $75-100 20 Lizette Tavares Legal Assistant $200 21 Valerie Bantner Peo Senior Counsel $450-480 22 Robert Zadek Of Counsel $845 23 Kari Barnes Graduated 2007 $545 24 Benjamin Heuer Shareholder $525-550 25 26 5 5.4 hours by Ms. Klein at $600; 4.7 hours by Mr. Jaeger at $600; 1.4 hours by Mr. Goldstein at 27 $600; 7.1 hours by Mr. Conboy at $75. (Dkt. No. 302-1 at 23.) 1 Corina Rachina Paralegal $310 2 Mikki F. Varela Paralegal $250 3 Kimberly Wolfe Paralegal $250 4 Flor Velazquez Research & Information $95 5 Peter J. Benvenutti Graduated 1974 $800-900 6 Brian P. Goldman Graduated 2010 $945-1,000 7 Leigha Henson Paralegal $350 8 (Dkt. No. 302-1 ¶¶ 4, 7, 8, 10–11, 13, 15–17, 20; Dkt. No. 302-2 ¶¶ 5, 9–15, 18; Dkt. No. 302-3 ¶ 9 2; Dkt. No. 302-4 ¶¶ 2, 4, 7.) At earlier stages of this case, the Court approved as reasonable the 10 uppermost requested rates of Mr. Jaeger, Ms. Klein, Ms. Rachina, and Ms. Varela. (Dkt. No. 301- 11 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 258 at 16–17.) 12 The requested rates are reasonable and in line with the prevailing rates in this District. 13 Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (“District judges can certainly 14 consider the fees awarded by other judges in the same locality in similar cases. . . . The district 15 court’s function is to award fees that reflect economic conditions in the district[.]”); see Chen v. 16 Chase Bank USA, N.A., No. 19-cv-01082-JSC, 2020 WL 3432644, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 17 2020) ($475-750 for attorneys); De Leon v. Ricoh USA, Inc., No. 18-cv-03725-JSC, 2020 WL 18 1531331, at *15–16 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020) ($675-800 for principals); Theodore Broomfield v. 19 Craft Brew All., Inc., No. 17-cv-01027-BLF, 2020 WL 1972505, at *11–12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 20 2020) ($475-825 for partners); Wilson v. Red Robin Int’l, Inc., No. 17-cv-00685-BLF, 2018 WL 21 5982868, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018) ($120-175 for paralegals); Max Sound Corp. v. Google, 22 Inc., No. 14-cv-04412-EJD, 2017 WL 4536342, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) ($520-950 for 23 partners); Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru Inc., No. 15-cv01741-EMC, 2017 WL 914273, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 24 Mar. 8, 2017) ($900 for senior partners); (Case No. 14-cv-04086-NC, Dkt. No. 203 at 5, Dkt. No. 25 185-1 at 21 ($250-350 for paralegals).) The highest hourly rates, of $800-1,000, remain 26 reasonable given this District’s economic conditions. (See Dkt. No. 246-17 at 21–38 (Defendant’s 27 fee expert summarizing hourly rates up to $1,500 depending on experience and firm reputation).) 1 Accordingly, the Court awards Defendant $545,544.31 in reasonable attorneys’ fees 2 || incurred to enforce the judgment. 3 CONCLUSION 4 Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part. The Court AWARDS Defendant $545,544.31 5 in attorneys’ fees. 6 This Order disposes of Docket No. 302. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: June 29, 2022
ol) ne 10 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States District Judge 12
15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28