Zanon v. Beauty by Design

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ***

4 FABIENNE ZANON, Case No. 2:20-cv-02080-JCM-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 BEAUTY BY DESIGN; RED ROCK SURGERY CENTER; ROBERT TROELL MD 8 LTD; ROBERT TROELL; DAVID MALITZ, MD PC; DAVID MALITZ MD; and DOES and 9 ROES 1 through 10,

10 Defendants.

11 12 Before the Court is Defendants’ Memorandum of Attorney Fees. ECF No. 58. No response 13 to the Memorandum was filed by Plaintiff. 14 The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has adopted the hybrid lodestar/multiplier 15 approach used by the Supreme Court in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), as the proper 16 method for determining the amount of attorney’s fees due in most actions. The lodestar/multiplier 17 approach has two parts. First, a court determines the “lodestar” amount by multiplying the number 18 of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. at 433. The party 19 seeking an award of fees must submit evidence supporting the hours worked and the rates claimed. 20 Id. The district court will generally exclude from the lodestar amount hours that are not reasonably 21 expended because they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Second, a court may 22 adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a “multiplier” based on factors not subsumed in the 23 initial calculation of the lodestar. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898–901 (1984) (reversing upward 24 multiplier based on factors subsumed in the lodestar determination). 25 Here, Defendants Las Vegas Surgery Center, LLC, David Malitz MD PC, and David Malitz 26 MD seek a total of $787.50 in attorney’s fees. Michael R. Esposito of Kravitz Schnitzer Johnson 27 Watsom & Zeppenfeld billed his time at $175 an hour. Mr. Esposito is in his seventh year of practice 1 || of 4.5 hours in researching and drafting the Motion for Sanctions. A review of Mr. Esposito 2 || background, the results of the Motion for Sanctions, and the billing entries shows the amount bill: 3 || and time spent was reasonable and appropriate. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Memorandum for Attorney’s fees (ECF N 6 || 58), seeking $787.50 is GRANTED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay the Kravitz Schnitzer Johnson Watso 8 || & Zeppenfeld firm the sum of $787.50 within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order unless : 9 || objection has been filed and is pending on that date. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to comply with this Order may result in addition 11 |} sanctions up to and including a recommendation to strike Plaintiff's operative Complaint. 12 13 Dated this Sth day of August, 2022. 14 15 FLAYNAY. Ra 16 UNITED STATES MAG TE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28