Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00198/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00198-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SANTANA ROW HOTEL PARTNERS, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY, GALLAGHER-PIPINO, INC. and

ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO.,

Defendants. /

No. C05-00198 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR FEES

AND EXPENSES

[Re: Docket Nos. 311, 312]

On April 17, 2007, this court granted the Gallagher Defendants’ motion to withdraw

admissions, but nonetheless stated that it would entertain a request from plaintiff “(a) itemizing

with particularity the otherwise unnecessary expenses (including attorney fees) incurred in

connection with the instant motion which were directly caused by the Gallagher Defendants’

belated responses; and (b) setting forth an appropriate justification for any attorney-fee hourly

rate claimed.” (See Docket No. 301 at 9:9-13). Plaintiff has submitted the declarations from its

counsel, claiming that it incurred $16,652.50 in unnecessary fees and expenses because of the

Gallagher Defendants’ belated (and deficient) responses to its requests for admission. The

Gallagher Defendants filed a response stating its objections. Upon consideration of the moving

and responding papers, the court issues the following order.

*E-FILED 10/15/2007*

Case 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 354 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Plaintiff’s counsel advise that they have been retained on a contingency-fee

basis. However, the parties apparently do not dispute that contingency-fee clients are not

precluded from receiving monetary awards. See generally, e.g., Gotro v. R&B Realty Group, 69 F.3d 1485, 1487-88 (9th Cir. 1995) (removal statute permitting recovery of “actual

expenses . . . incurred” does not preclude recovery by contingency fee litigant); Adams v.

Adams, 52 Cal. App.4th 911, 914 (1997) (“Just because a client does not become liable to

pay an attorney for services rendered if a settlement is not reached or a favorable judgment

rendered does not preclude imposition of sanctions for an attorney’s egregious behavior.”).

2

This court is well familiar with the range of rates customarily charged by attorneys

practicing before it, and the stated hourly rates are within the range for cases of this magnitude

and complexity.1

 Nevertheless, although counsel insist that their time estimations are accurate,

their submissions indicate that the claimed time spent on the identified tasks are approximations

only. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel have not convincingly demonstrated the reasonableness of

the time spent on identified tasks. Nor have they shown that plaintiff is entitled to be

compensated for all identified tasks. At the same time, however, the court agreed that

defendants’ belated responses were deficient in certain respects and required supplementation. 

Any doubts this court may have as to the sufficiency of plaintiff’s counsel’s showing as to the

reasonableness of the hourly rates, or as to the efficiency of the time spent on the identified

tasks, are eliminated by the award of a small fraction of the claimed fees.

After due consideration of the reasonableness of the fee request, IT IS ORDERED

THAT plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Gallagher Defendants shall pay $1900

to plaintiff for attorney’s fees/costs incurred in litigating their underlying motion to withdraw.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

October 15, 2007

Case 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 354 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

5:05-cv-198 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Ron Howard Burnovski rburnovski@jonesturner.com 

Steven A. Ellenberg sellenberg@rubyschofield.com, mjones@rubyschofield.com 

Alan Michael Jones ajones@jonesturner.com, jgallagher@jonesturner.com 

Curtis Richard Ogilvie cogilvie@selvinwraith.com, kmcandrews@selvinwraith.com 

Allen Ruby aruby@rubyschofield.com 

Glen William Schofield gschofield@rubyschofield.com, bug@rubyschofield.com 

Gary Robert Selvin gselvin@selvinwraith.com, kshahin@selvinwraith.com 

Steven Donald Turner sturner@jonesturner.com, htornay@jonesturner.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 354 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 3