Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01977/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01977-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF

AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LORI CHIANG, ROBERT CHIANG, and

CHIANG CM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

INC.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-04-1977-SC

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

(1) ALTER AND AMEND

JUDGMENTS AND (2)

AMEND FINDINGS OF

FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

OF LAW FOLLOWING

TRIAL 

AND

GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S

FEES FOLLOWING TRIAL

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are two related motions by Plaintiff Safeco

Insurance Company of America ("Plaintiff" or "Safeco"), which

Defendants Lori Chiang, Robert Chiang, Chiang CM Construction

Company, Inc. ("Defendants") have opposed: Plaintiff's Motion to

Alter and Amend Judgments and Amend Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law Following Trial ("Motion to Amend"); and

Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees Following Trial ("Motion

for Fees"). See Docket Nos. 92, 95. For the following reasons,

the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and GRANTS

Case 3:04-cv-01977-SC Document 111 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 8
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

2

Plaintiff's Motion for Fees.

II. MOTION TO AMEND

The Motion to Amend seeks the following relief:

(1) Alter and Amend the findings contained within the

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated and entered on July 6, 2006 (the "July Order,"

Docket entry #52) to include a finding that Safeco is

entitled, as a matter of law to recover against

defendants, jointly and severally, its attorney's fees

incurred in the prosecution of the instant lawsuit,

which order subsequently became judgment by operation of

law on December 4, 2006 (the "December 4 Judgment");

(2) Amend the Findings of Fact and Conclusions or Law, dated and entered November 30, 2006 (the "Findings,"

Docket entry #84) to include a finding that Safeco is

entitled, as a matter of law, to recover against

defendants, jointly and severally, its attorney's fees

incurred in the prosecution of the instant lawsuit; and

(3) Alteration and amendment of the December 1 Judgment

to include a determination that Safeco is entitled to

recover against defendants, jointly and severally, its

attorney's fees incurred in the prosecution of the

instant lawsuit.

Motion to Amend at 2-3. In opposition, Defendants makes both

procedural and substantive arguments in defense, all of which

fail.

A. Legal Standard

A court is given broad discretion to alter or amend its prior

orders if it "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

/

/

Case 3:04-cv-01977-SC Document 111 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 8
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

B. Discussion

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is Timely

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is untimely

and should be denied on this ground. Opp. to Mot. to Amend at 4. 

Specifically, Defendants complain that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend

was filed on December 15, 2006, which is more than ten days after

the Court rendered its Final Judgment on December 1, 2006. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) gives parties ten days

after the entry of a judgment to file any motion for its

alteration or amendment. However, Rule 6(a) provides that "[w]hen

the period of time prescribed by [a rule] is less than 11 days,

intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be

excluded in the computation." December 2, 2006 was a Saturday;

and December 3, 2006 was a Sunday. Thus, the Motion to Amend was

timely. 

2. Plaintiff is Not Barred from Making the Motion to

Amend

Defendants, more-or-less without argument, assert that

Plaintiff should be barred from making the Motion to Amend on the

grounds that 1) Plaintiff already submitted a motion for

reconsideration dealing with similar issues, which was denied, and

2) Plaintiff submitted the draft judgment which it now seeks to

amend. See Opp. to Mot. to Amend at 2, 8. There is no legal

authority for barring Plaintiff from making its Motion to Amend on

these grounds. 

3. The July Order Reaches an Erroneous Conclusion

The July Order dismissed Safeco's prayer for attorney's fees

in the instant action on the grounds that "absent a contractual

Case 3:04-cv-01977-SC Document 111 Filed 02/07/07 Page 3 of 8
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

4

provision specifying an award of attorney fees in an action to

enforce an indemnity agreement, current California law holds that

an indemnity agreement does not include recovery of attorney fees

incurred in enforcing the agreement;" and such a provision was

absent from the General Agreement of Indemnity for Contractors

concluded by the parties on January 18, 1998 ("Indemnity

Agreement"). July Order at 10. This statement of law is correct. 

See Continental Heller Corp. v. Amtech Mechanical Services, Inc.,

53 Cal. App. 4th 500, 508 (1997). However, the Court's reading of

the Indemnity Agreement was erroneous.

The Indemnity Agreement states that, upon demand, the

undersigned (Defendant) shall pay the surety (Plaintiff) "all

loss, costs and expenses of whatsoever kind and nature, including

court costs and attorneys fees . . ., consultant fees,

investigation costs and any other losses, costs or expenses

incurred by Surety by reason of having executed any Bond, or

incurred by it on account of any Default under this agreement by

any of the Undersigned." Indemnity Agreement (Admitted in to

Evidence as Plaintiff's Ex. 1) at 1 (emphasis added). The

Indemnity Agreement defines "default" to include, inter alia, when

the undersigned "[b]reaches, fails to perform, or comply with any

provision of this agreement." Id. After trial on the merits, the

Court found that Defendants had breached the Indemnity Agreement. 

See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Docket No. 84, at 7. 

Thus, the Court FINDS as a matter of law that Defendants are

jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for reasonable attorneys

fees incurred in Plaintiff's prosecution of this action. The July

Case 3:04-cv-01977-SC Document 111 Filed 02/07/07 Page 4 of 8
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

5

Order is hereby AMENDED to so read. Accordingly, the Court will

AMEND and REISSUE its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and

will ISSUE an Amended Judgment to reflect this modified finding.

 

III. Motion for Attorney's Fees

Plaintiff requests a total of $69,747.50 in attorney's fees. 

See Plaintiff's Submission in Connection with their Motion for

Fees, Docket No. 109. Having determined that Plaintiff is

entitled to attorney's fees as a matter of law and having found

that the amount of attorney's fees requested are reasonable, the

Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Fees.

A. Legal Standard

This case is before the Court on diversity jurisdiction;

thus, California state law governs the Court's evaluation of the

Plaintiff's Motion for Fees. See Michael-Regan Co., Inc. v.

Lindell, 527 F.2d 653, 656 (9th Cir. 1975). California Civil Code

§ 1717 provides for reciprocal enforcement of any contractual

provision for attorney's fees. In other words, even if the

contractual provision of attorney's fees operates only in the

direction of one party to the contract, a court shall award

attorney's fees to whichever party prevails. See Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1717(a). In doing so, "[r]easonable attorney's fees shall be

fixed by the court." Id. According to the California Supreme

Court, this gives the Court "broad authority to determine the

amount of a reasonable fee." PLCM Group v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th

1084, 1095 (2000). "Ordinarily," a court exercising this

authority "begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e. the number of hours

Case 3:04-cv-01977-SC Document 111 Filed 02/07/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate." 

Id. The party opposing a motion for attorney's fees on the ground

that the amount requested is unreasonably high must support such

opposition with particularized objections to the requested

amounts. See Avikian v. WTC Financial Corp., 98 Cal.App.4th 1108,

1119 (2002). 

B. Discussion

Applying this standard, the Court finds that the amount of

fees requested by Plaintiff are reasonable. According to the

declaration submitted in support of the Motion, for Fees the five

attorneys who billed time on the matter billed at rates from

$170.00 to $240.00 per hour; and paralegals working on the case

were billed at $115.00 an hour. See Beierle December 15, 2006

Decl., Docket No. 97, at 4-5. These rates are reasonable in light

of the experience of the attorneys involved. The number of hours

worked also seems reasonable given the history of the litigation

and Plaintiff's ultimate success. See id.; Beierle January 26,

2007 Decl., Docket No. 110. 

Defendants argue, generally, that they should be given

additional time to address Plaintiff's request for fees "[b]ecause

it is likely that the court will deny an award of any attorney's

fees in light of" Defendants' arguments regarding Plaintiff's

Motion to Amend. Opp. at 8. The Court does not agree. 

Defendants were given more than sufficient time to review and

address the figures submitted by Plaintiff, and if Defendants were

nonetheless unable to do so, Defendants should have submitted a

formal request to the Court for additional time. What's more,

Case 3:04-cv-01977-SC Document 111 Filed 02/07/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

even if such a formal request had been submitted, it would have

been denied if the only ground stated in support was Defendants'

(incorrect) presumption that they would prevail in their

opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.

Defendants' particular objections also fail. First,

Defendants object to fees related to Safeco's Motion for Summary

Judgment on the ground that the motion was unsuccessful. The

Court in its determination is concerned with the ultimate success

or failure of the litigation as a whole, not the success or

failure of particular motions. Second, Defendants complain that

two attorneys, as opposed to one, were billed during trial. It

was not unreasonable for Plaintiff to have enlisted the assistance

of two attorneys during trial, especially in light of the fact

that one of those attorneys also appeared as a witness and needed

to be examined by the other. Third, Defendants object to the

amount charged for representation at trial on the grounds that

Defendants relied on the Court's prior ruling that Plaintiff was

not eligible to collect fees. This argument is irrelevant to the

task at hand, determining the reasonableness of the fees

requested, and so fails. Finally, Defendants object to certain

charges which are not supported by invoice exhibits. This is

without basis in the law: local rules do not require the

submission of invoices to support requests for attorney's fees. 

See Civil L.R. 54-6(b). 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend is

Case 3:04-cv-01977-SC Document 111 Filed 02/07/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Fees is GRANTED in the amount

of $69,747.50, jointly and severally, against Defendants. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2007

____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01977-SC Document 111 Filed 02/07/07 Page 8 of 8