Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01709/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01709-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent 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

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS—C-05-01709 RMW

TER

E-FILED on 3/26/10 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADVANTICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v.

GOLD WING ENGINEERING, a California

corporation, ERIK GUTIERREZ, an

individual, JOEL GUTIERREZ, an individual,

and J&J PIPELINE COMPANY, a California

corporation,

Defendants.

No. C-05-01709 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY'S FEES

Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1927 has been submitted for

decision without oral argument. Having considered the papers submitted by the parties, the motion

is denied. 

Under section 1927, whenever an attorney unreasonably and vexatiously multiplies the

proceedings, the court has authority to require the attorney "to satisfy personally the excess costs,

expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct." Plaintiff has not met

this standard.

Plaintiff initially sought an award of $10,948 in attorney's fees, which it increased to

$26,202.50 in its supplemental letter brief filed on March 9, 2010 (Docket 139). Plaintiff contends

that these fees resulted from what it considers to be defense counsel's unreasonable refusal to

cooperate in the finalization and execution of the parties' written settlement agreement after the

Case 5:05-cv-01709-RMW Document 143 Filed 03/26/10 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

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS—C-05-01709 RMW

TER 2

parties reached an oral agreement in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Lloyd on June

26, 2009. 

The evidence submitted by the parties establishes that defense counsel was not particularly

prompt in their responses to plaintiff's counsel's efforts to obtain executed copies of the settlement

agreement. The individual attorney who was largely coordinating these efforts was experiencing

medical problems at the time, which undoubtedly hampered the speed with which she could reply to

plaintiff's counsel's e-mail messages, but it is also clear that there were other attorneys who were

part of the defense case team who presumably could have responded more promptly to plaintiff's

counsel's efforts to obtain fully executed documents. Nevertheless, the evidence also shows that

plaintiff's counsel received a copy of the settlement agreement on October 21, 2009, executed by all

defendants except Eric Gutierrez (whom plaintiff agreed did not have to sign), yet plaintiff's counsel

found this inadequate because the agreement was not also signed by defense counsel. Thereafter,

much of the delay and claimed legal expenses, resulted from plaintiff's counsel's insistence that

defendants and their counsel personally execute the settlement documents before plaintiff itself

signed the agreement. Plaintiff's counsel has offered no explanation for why it was necessary for

counsel to sign the settlement agreement, nor has he established that there was any agreement to do

so (except, perhaps, by silence in response to his e-mail proposal that the defendants and counsel

should sign and return the agreement before plaintiff signed it). In the court's view, it appears that

the parties had already reached a binding agreement, albeit oral, and the written agreement would

have become binding upon the parties' execution regardless of whether counsel also signed the

agreement. Thus, it was within plaintiff's power to resolve this dispute over the settlement

agreement as of October 21, 2009. The delays and expense incurred since that date are equally the

fault of both sides.

Additionally, the court notes that the tenor of several of the e-mail messages from plaintiff's

counsel rendered it significantly unlikely that he would receive a pleasant, prompt or cooperative

response. While this does not excuse an unduly delayed response, it may explain why defendants'

counsel may not have placed responding to plaintiffs' counsel's demands at the top of their list of

things to do. 

Case 5:05-cv-01709-RMW Document 143 Filed 03/26/10 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

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS—C-05-01709 RMW

TER 3

Moreover, plaintiff has failed to establish that the fees sought are reasonable. Although the

hourly rates are reasonable, counsel has not established that the claimed hours were actually

incurred. Mr. Petry's time entries are generally billed in half-hour or whole hour increments:

thirteen of the 33 entries are for .50 hours, eight entries are for 2.0 hours, six entries are for 1.0

hours, two entries are for 2.50 hours, one entry is for 3.0 hours, and one entry is for 4.0 hours. The

remaining two entries are for .30 and .70 hours. The declarations of Mr. Petry do not explain his

billing practices nor do they state that the invoices submitted reflect the actual time he incurred on

the recited tasks. In any event, it was not reasonable under the circumstances to incur more than

$26,000 in legal fees to obtain an executed settlement agreement.

Plaintiff has thus failed to establish that an award of attorney's fees is proper and has also

failed to establish that the attorney's fees sought are reasonable. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for

attorney's fees is denied.

DATED: 3/26/10 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01709-RMW Document 143 Filed 03/26/10 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

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS—C-05-01709 RMW

TER 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Marvin Petry mpetry@stites.com

Kenneth B. Grossfeld kgrossfeld@hgla.com 

Brian M. Englund benglund@hgla.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Shannon N. Cogan shannon.cogan@berliner.com

Frank R. Ubhaus fru@berliner.com 

Kathleen Sherman kathy.sherman@berliner.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 3/26/10 TER

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-01709-RMW Document 143 Filed 03/26/10 Page 4 of 4