1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNIT 53, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01718-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING RULE 37 EXPENSES 14 RUN ROADLINES, INC., et al., (ECF Nos. 78, 79) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On July 7, 2025, the Court recommended granting Plaintiff Unit 53, Inc.’s motion 18 for sanctions against Defendants Run Roadlines, Inc., Manpreet Randhawa, and 3515 19 Hwy 99, LLC.1 (ECF No. 78.) On August 7, 2025, the District Judge adopted the findings 20 and recommendations. (ECF No. 83.) Because Plaintiff had not provided the Court with 21 sufficient information to determine the amount of expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C), the Court ordered Plaintiff to file and submit its reasonable 23 expenses, including attorney’s fees. 7/7/2025 Order at 17-18 (ECF No. 78). Plaintiff has 24 now done so, and requests that its expenses be paid within fourteen (14) days of the 25 Court’s order. Pl. Expenses (ECF No. 79). Defendants were not entitled to a response. 26 See 7/7/2025 Order at 18. 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(1). 1 I. DISCUSSION2 2 As the Court has previously ordered, under Rule 37, awarding reasonable 3 expenses in making the motion, including attorneys’ fees, is mandatory here as the 4 Court found no substantial justification for Defendants’ failure to fully respond to 5 Defendant’s interrogatories and RFPs that were first served in July 2023, especially after 6 ordered by the Court to do so at the December 17, 2024 hearing, the January 9, 2025 7 motion to compel hearing, and in writing through the Court’s written orders. See Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); 7/7/2025 Order at 17. 9 The Ninth Circuit affords district courts broad discretion in determining the 10 reasonableness of fees. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 While the amount of a fee award is discretionary, the district court must “provide a 12 concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.” Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 13 757 F.3d 866, 868 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit utilizes the “lodestar” method for 14 assessing reasonable attorney's fees. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 15 1202 (9th Cir. 2013). Under the “lodestar” method, the number of hours reasonably 16 expended is multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. Reasonable hourly rates are 17 determined by the “prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Sorenson v. Mink, 18 239 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). “[T]he established standard when determining a 19 reasonable hourly rate is the ‘rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed 20 by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.’” Camacho v. Bridgeport 21 Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502 22 (9th Cir. 1997)). Generally, “the relevant community is the forum in which the district 23 court sits.” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (quoting Barjon, 132 F.3d at 500). Here, the 24 relevant community is Sacramento, California, which is where this district court is 25 located. 26 Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $68,988.50 for two attorneys from 27 2 Additional background on Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is provided in the Court’s 28 order. See 7/7/2025 Order. 1 Winstead PC for a total of 120.5 hours in connection with the discovery conferences held 2 on February 18, 2025 and April 3, 2025, and in preparing and prosecuting Plaintiff’s 3 motion for sanctions. Pl. Expenses at 4-6. Plaintiff states that it is not seeking recovery of 4 fees incurred by Nossaman LLP due to the unlikelihood of collection and the extensive 5 time required for counsel to review its fee statements. Id. at 4 n.1. Plaintiff reserves the 6 right to seek collection of Nossaman’s fees at a later date or under another order of 7 judgment of the Court. Id. Plaintiff’s fees are based on a $675 hourly rate for 73.9 hours 8 by attorney Matthias Kleinsasser; and a $410 hourly rate for 46.6 hours by attorney 9 Jared Hendrix. Id. at 6; see Declaration of Christopher D. Hughes ¶ 16 & Exh. A (ECF 10 No. 79-2). 11 In awarding attorney’s fees, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “the district 12 court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent—a ‘haircut’—based on 13 its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation.” Moreno v. City of 14 Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court exercises its discretion to 15 impose a 10% “haircut” reduction. Though a more specific explanation is not required, 16 the Court imposes this reduction because the billing entries submitted include hours 17 requested for work that would have been incurred regardless of whether Plaintiff sought 18 discovery relief leading to the discovery conferences, some duplication of effort (e.g., two 19 attorneys attending a discovery conference instead of one attorney), and work that may 20 not be related to the discovery conferences and sanctions motion (e.g., reviewing 21 correspondence). The Court therefore reduces Mr. Kleinsasser’s hours from 73.9 hours 22 to 66.51 hours, and Mr. Hendrix’s hours from 46.6 hours to 41.94 hours. 23 The Court turns next to Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates. Plaintiff’s counsel 24 Matthias Kleinsasser is a shareholder at the law firm Winstead PC and has been 25 practicing law in Texas since 2010. Hughes Decl. ¶ 4; Declaration of Matthias 26 Kleinsasser ¶ 2. Plaintiff’s counsel Jared Hendrix is an associate at Winstead who has 27 been practicing law in Texas since 2021. Hughes Decl. ¶ 6. To support the requested 28 hourly rates, Plaintiff’s counsel relies on the experience of attorney Christopher Hughes, 1 who is familiar with the market rates in the Eastern District of California, and case law 2 from the Eastern District of California. See id. ¶¶ 24-25. The Court notes that in the 3 Court’s January 31, 2025 order granting reasonable expenses, the Court found the 4 hourly rates of $620 for Shareholder Attorney Kleinsasser and $370 for Associate 5 Attorney Hendrix reasonable. 1/31/2025 Order. Here, Plaintiff is requesting increased 6 hourly rates of $675 for Shareholder Attorney Kleinsasser and $410 for Associate 7 Attorney Hendrix. Hughes Decl. ¶ 21. Plaintiff acknowledges that Winstead has 8 increased their rates for the 2025 year, and believes that the rates requested are still 9 reasonable. Id. ¶ 25. 10 The Court finds that hourly rate of $675 for Mr. Kleinsasser, a shareholder 11 attorney with fifteen (15) years of experience, to be reasonable and reflect the prevailing 12 market rate in Sacramento for attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. 13 See, e.g., Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Manteca Lifestyle Ctr., LLC, 2024 WL 1312209, at 14 *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2024) (awarding $700 per hour for partners); Gong-Chun v. Aetna 15 Inc., 2012 WL 2872788, at *23 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2012) (awarding between $490 and 16 $695 per hour for senior counsel and partners); Velasco v. Mis Amigos Meat Market, 17 Inc., 2013 WL 5755054, at *12 n.4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) (approving a partner hourly 18 rate of $650). The Court does not find, however, the requested $410 hourly rate for Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNIT 53, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01718-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING RULE 37 EXPENSES 14 RUN ROADLINES, INC., et al., (ECF Nos. 78, 79) 15 Defendant. 16 17 On July 7, 2025, the Court recommended granting Plaintiff Unit 53, Inc.’s motion 18 for sanctions against Defendants Run Roadlines, Inc., Manpreet Randhawa, and 3515 19 Hwy 99, LLC.1 (ECF No. 78.) On August 7, 2025, the District Judge adopted the findings 20 and recommendations. (ECF No. 83.) Because Plaintiff had not provided the Court with 21 sufficient information to determine the amount of expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of 22 Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(C), the Court ordered Plaintiff to file and submit its reasonable 23 expenses, including attorney’s fees. 7/7/2025 Order at 17-18 (ECF No. 78). Plaintiff has 24 now done so, and requests that its expenses be paid within fourteen (14) days of the 25 Court’s order. Pl. Expenses (ECF No. 79). Defendants were not entitled to a response. 26 See 7/7/2025 Order at 18. 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(1). 1 I. DISCUSSION2 2 As the Court has previously ordered, under Rule 37, awarding reasonable 3 expenses in making the motion, including attorneys’ fees, is mandatory here as the 4 Court found no substantial justification for Defendants’ failure to fully respond to 5 Defendant’s interrogatories and RFPs that were first served in July 2023, especially after 6 ordered by the Court to do so at the December 17, 2024 hearing, the January 9, 2025 7 motion to compel hearing, and in writing through the Court’s written orders. See Fed. R. 8 Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C); 7/7/2025 Order at 17. 9 The Ninth Circuit affords district courts broad discretion in determining the 10 reasonableness of fees. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 While the amount of a fee award is discretionary, the district court must “provide a 12 concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the fee award.” Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 13 757 F.3d 866, 868 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit utilizes the “lodestar” method for 14 assessing reasonable attorney's fees. Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 15 1202 (9th Cir. 2013). Under the “lodestar” method, the number of hours reasonably 16 expended is multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. Reasonable hourly rates are 17 determined by the “prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” Sorenson v. Mink, 18 239 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). “[T]he established standard when determining a 19 reasonable hourly rate is the ‘rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed 20 by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.’” Camacho v. Bridgeport 21 Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502 22 (9th Cir. 1997)). Generally, “the relevant community is the forum in which the district 23 court sits.” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (quoting Barjon, 132 F.3d at 500). Here, the 24 relevant community is Sacramento, California, which is where this district court is 25 located. 26 Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $68,988.50 for two attorneys from 27 2 Additional background on Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is provided in the Court’s 28 order. See 7/7/2025 Order. 1 Winstead PC for a total of 120.5 hours in connection with the discovery conferences held 2 on February 18, 2025 and April 3, 2025, and in preparing and prosecuting Plaintiff’s 3 motion for sanctions. Pl. Expenses at 4-6. Plaintiff states that it is not seeking recovery of 4 fees incurred by Nossaman LLP due to the unlikelihood of collection and the extensive 5 time required for counsel to review its fee statements. Id. at 4 n.1. Plaintiff reserves the 6 right to seek collection of Nossaman’s fees at a later date or under another order of 7 judgment of the Court. Id. Plaintiff’s fees are based on a $675 hourly rate for 73.9 hours 8 by attorney Matthias Kleinsasser; and a $410 hourly rate for 46.6 hours by attorney 9 Jared Hendrix. Id. at 6; see Declaration of Christopher D. Hughes ¶ 16 & Exh. A (ECF 10 No. 79-2). 11 In awarding attorney’s fees, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “the district 12 court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent—a ‘haircut’—based on 13 its exercise of discretion and without a more specific explanation.” Moreno v. City of 14 Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court exercises its discretion to 15 impose a 10% “haircut” reduction. Though a more specific explanation is not required, 16 the Court imposes this reduction because the billing entries submitted include hours 17 requested for work that would have been incurred regardless of whether Plaintiff sought 18 discovery relief leading to the discovery conferences, some duplication of effort (e.g., two 19 attorneys attending a discovery conference instead of one attorney), and work that may 20 not be related to the discovery conferences and sanctions motion (e.g., reviewing 21 correspondence). The Court therefore reduces Mr. Kleinsasser’s hours from 73.9 hours 22 to 66.51 hours, and Mr. Hendrix’s hours from 46.6 hours to 41.94 hours. 23 The Court turns next to Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rates. Plaintiff’s counsel 24 Matthias Kleinsasser is a shareholder at the law firm Winstead PC and has been 25 practicing law in Texas since 2010. Hughes Decl. ¶ 4; Declaration of Matthias 26 Kleinsasser ¶ 2. Plaintiff’s counsel Jared Hendrix is an associate at Winstead who has 27 been practicing law in Texas since 2021. Hughes Decl. ¶ 6. To support the requested 28 hourly rates, Plaintiff’s counsel relies on the experience of attorney Christopher Hughes, 1 who is familiar with the market rates in the Eastern District of California, and case law 2 from the Eastern District of California. See id. ¶¶ 24-25. The Court notes that in the 3 Court’s January 31, 2025 order granting reasonable expenses, the Court found the 4 hourly rates of $620 for Shareholder Attorney Kleinsasser and $370 for Associate 5 Attorney Hendrix reasonable. 1/31/2025 Order. Here, Plaintiff is requesting increased 6 hourly rates of $675 for Shareholder Attorney Kleinsasser and $410 for Associate 7 Attorney Hendrix. Hughes Decl. ¶ 21. Plaintiff acknowledges that Winstead has 8 increased their rates for the 2025 year, and believes that the rates requested are still 9 reasonable. Id. ¶ 25. 10 The Court finds that hourly rate of $675 for Mr. Kleinsasser, a shareholder 11 attorney with fifteen (15) years of experience, to be reasonable and reflect the prevailing 12 market rate in Sacramento for attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. 13 See, e.g., Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Manteca Lifestyle Ctr., LLC, 2024 WL 1312209, at 14 *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2024) (awarding $700 per hour for partners); Gong-Chun v. Aetna 15 Inc., 2012 WL 2872788, at *23 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2012) (awarding between $490 and 16 $695 per hour for senior counsel and partners); Velasco v. Mis Amigos Meat Market, 17 Inc., 2013 WL 5755054, at *12 n.4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) (approving a partner hourly 18 rate of $650). The Court does not find, however, the requested $410 hourly rate for Mr. 19 Hendrix, an associate with three (3) years of experience, to be reasonable for the 20 relevant community as this rate reflects the rate for associates with more experience. 21 See Am. Multi-Cinema, 2024 WL 1312209 at *3 (awarding $375 per hour for associate 22 attorneys); Gong-Chun, 2012 WL 2872788 at *23 (awarding between $300 and $420 per 23 hour for associates); Velasco, 2013 WL 5755054 at *12 n.4 (approving a junior associate 24 hourly rate of $395). As previously found, a $370 hourly rate for Associate Attorney 25 Hendrix is reasonable and will also be awarded here. See 1/31/2025 Order. 26 The Court also notes that Plaintiff could have sought reimbursement for its 27 reasonable costs, but did not and only requested reimbursement for its attorney’s fees 28 for two of its three attorneys. 1 Pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(C), the Court therefore orders Defendants to pay 2 | Plaintiff's reasonable expenses in the amount of $60,412.05, which represents 66.51 3 || hours for Mr. Kleinsasser at a $675 hourly rate and 41.94 hours for Mr. Hendrix at a 4 | $370 hourly rate, to Plaintiff within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order. 9 ORDER 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 7 1. Plaintiff is awarded its reasonable expenses in connection with the discovery 8 conferences held on February 18, 2025, and April 3, 2025, and in preparing 9 and prosecuting Plaintiffs motion for sanctions in the amount of $60,412.05, 10 which must be paid by Defendants within twenty-one (21) days of the date of 11 this order; and 12 2. Defendants shall simultaneously file a notice with the Court once payment is 13 made. 14 15 | Dated: August 11, 2025 CO i S \U 16 CHI SOO KIM 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 || 5, unit.1718.24 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28