Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03550/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-03550-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maurice McAlister and Diane S.

McAlister, husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Trailwagons of California, Inc.; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:05-CV-3550-PCT-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 38). The

Court also has considered the Affidavit of Sharon L. Nelson in Support of Motion for

Attorney’s Fees (Doc. # 38-2) and Defendant’s Reply Regarding Its Motion for Attorney’s

Fees (Doc. # 39). For the following reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion and

award attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $2,362.65.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant, Wheeler’s Las Vegas R.V. (“Wheeler’s”), is an R.V. dealer from which

Maurice and Diane McAlister (“Plaintiffs”) purchased an R.V. Plaintiffs brought suit for

claims arising out of their dissatisfaction with the performance of their R.V. The matter was

removed from state court on November 3, 2005. On June 29, 2007, this Court granted

Wheeler’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute (Doc. # 36), finding that Plaintiffs had

not taken any action in the case for over a year and had repeatedly ignored the Court’s

Case 3:05-cv-03550-JAT Document 40 Filed 03/26/08 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

scheduling orders and show cause hearings. Wheeler’s subsequently filed the present Motion

for Attorney’s Fees, requesting that the Court award them attorney’s fees and expenses as

a sanction on Plaintiffs under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Rule 16(f) allows for sanctions to be ordered when a party “fails to obey a scheduling

or pretrial order, or if no appearance is made on behalf of a party at a scheduling or pretrial

conference . . . or if a party or party’s attorney fails to participate in good faith.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16(f). Rule 16(f) states that the Court “shall require the party or the attorney representing

the party or both to pay the reasonable expenses incurred because of any noncompliance with

this rule, including attorney’s fees.” Id. “An award of sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)

is within the discretion of the district court.” Ayers v. City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1269

(9th Cir. 1990). Courts may exercise “‘very broad discretion’” when determining if an award

of expenses is appropriate as a sanction in order to “‘fulfill their high duty to insure the

expeditious and sound management of the preparation of cases for trial.’” Martin Family

Trust v. Heco/Nostalgia Enters. Co., 186 F.R.D. 601, 602 (E.D. Cal. 1999) (quoting Matter

of Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1440 (10th Cir. 1984)).

Wheeler’s has requested that the Court sanction Plaintiffs by ordering payment of

Wheeler’s attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $6,840.73. (Doc. # 38 at 3; Doc #

38-2 at 2.) Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Wheeler’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, and

Plaintiffs have shown no justification for the repeated disregard of this Court’s orders. Thus,

the Court finds an award of attorney’s fees appropriate. 

However, before awarding Wheeler’s attorney’s fees, the Court must determine whether

the requested fees are reasonable. The determination of the amount of reasonable attorney’s

fees involves the analysis of numerous factors, which include:

[T]he number of hours “reasonably expended” by counsel; the propriety of the

hourly rate requested by counsel, given the skill and experience of counsel and the

level of sophistication required for the legal services at issue; whether counsel has

made a “good faith effort to exclude from [the] fee request hours that are

Case 3:05-cv-03550-JAT Document 40 Filed 03/26/08 Page 2 of 4
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

On November 8, 2006, the Court sanctioned Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel in the

amount of $300 for Plaintiffs’ repeated failure to appear. (Doc. # 32.) To date, Plaintiffs

have not filed a notification of payment of the $300.

- 3 -

excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary”; and the “level of success”

obtained through counsel’s efforts. 

Green v. Baca, 225 F.R.D. 612, 614-15 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Jordan v. Multnomah

County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Court must assess “the

reasonableness of the fee in light of the totality of the circumstances.” Jordan, 815 F.2d

at 1263 n.7.

Here, Wheeler’s has provided the Court and Plaintiffs with the time records of attorney

servicesrendered. (Doc # 38-2.) Wheeler’s attorney, Ms. Nelson, charged a rate of $135 per

hour, and her paralegal charged $65 per hour. The Court is satisfied that the rates charged

by Ms. Nelson are reasonable and consistent with, or lower than, the rates charged by other

attorneys in the Las Vegas area. 

Wheeler’s requests the total attorney’s fees and expenses for this matter, beginning on

October 27, 2005. It is appropriate that Plaintiffs pay reasonable fees and expenses

stemming from the failure to comply with the scheduling orders and show cause hearings.

This Court finds that it is proper to compensate Wheeler’s for the attorney’s fees and

expenses that were incurred between the period of October 23, 2006, when Plaintiffs first

failed to appear at the scheduling conference and show cause hearing, and July 3, 2007, when

Ms. Nelson made her final billing entry for this matter. (Doc. # 29; Doc. # 38-2.) During

this period Wheeler’s appeared on November 7, 2006, for another show cause hearing

ordered by this Court, which Plaintiffs again did not attend. (Doc. # 29.)1

 On January 8,

2007, Wheeler’s filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which this Court granted.

The time and expenses billed for these tasks are reasonable and resulted from Plaintiffs’

failure to prosecute its claim. (Doc # 38-2.) Therefore, the Court finds that an award of

attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,246 and expenses in the amount of $116.60 is reasonable

and appropriate.

Case 3:05-cv-03550-JAT Document 40 Filed 03/26/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Defendant Wheeler’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

(Doc. # 38) in the total amount of $2,362.60.

DATED this 25th day of March, 2008.

Case 3:05-cv-03550-JAT Document 40 Filed 03/26/08 Page 4 of 4