Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00665-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2801 Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

---

1 

12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BP West Coast Products LLC, 

Plaintiff,

vs. 

Crossroad Petroleum, Inc. et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB 

Order Denying Without Prejudice 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

and Costs 

[ECF No. 429] 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant BP West Coast Products 

LLC’s (“BPWCP”) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Associated with Motions to 

Compel Discovery Against Schiller Defendants1

 (ECF No. 429), pursuant to Rule 37 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Order dated June 2, 2015 (ECF No. 

421). 

 Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2. requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition 

or statement of non-opposition within the fourteen calendar days prior to the noticed 

                                                                

1 See ECF Nos. 414 and 422 (identifying the Schiller Defendants). 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 456 Filed 08/27/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

hearing. Failure to comply with these rules “may constitute a consent to the granting of a 

motion.” CivLR 7.1.f.3.c. District courts have broad discretion to enact and apply local 

rules, including issuing sanctions for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an unopposed motion to 

dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to 

granting the motion); United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Only 

in rare cases will we question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application 

of local rules”). 

 Here, the scheduled hearing date reflected on Plaintiff BPWCP’s noticed motion 

was July 16, 2015, resulting in a response deadline for the Schiller Defendants of July 2, 

2015. More than one month has passed since the scheduled hearing date and still the 

Schiller Defendants have not filed an opposition. Applying the local rules of this court 

and considering the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, the court’s 

need to manage its docket, and the merits of BPWCP’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and 

Costs, the Court concludes that BPWCP should be awarded reasonable fees and costs. 

 However, BPWCP is seeking $38,840.55 in fees, and the Court is unable to 

calculate the amount of reasonable costs and fees owed to BPWCP based on the current 

record. First, BPWCP fails to articulate why each of the Schiller Defendants should be 

jointly responsible for BPWCP’s fees and costs, or alternatively, how the fees and costs 

sought should be apportioned between the various Schiller Defendants. Second, BPWCP 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 456 Filed 08/27/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

fails to meet its burden of producing sufficient evidence showing that the requested 

hourly rates are reasonable rates in the Southern District of California for work of similar 

complexity by attorneys with comparable skill and reputation. See Chaudhry v. City of 

Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Fee applicants have the burden of 

producing evidence that their requested fees are ‘in line with those prevailing in the 

community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience 

and reputation.’”); Blair v. CBE Group, Inc., No. 13cv134-MMA, 2014 WL 4658731, at 

*3-*5 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) (same).

The evidence presented in support of BPWCP’s fees is inadequate.2

 For example, 

BPWCP provides an itemized list detailing the fees and costs incurred by named 

“professional[s],” but fails to provide job titles and other information relevant to these 

professionals’ skill, experience, and reputation. Further, BPWCP provides its own 

counsel’s declaration attesting to the reasonableness of the fees sought, but fails to 

provide other corroborating evidence. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 n.11 (1984) 

(“the burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the 

                                                                

2

 The Court notes that this is BPWCP’s second opportunity to meet this burden. The Court previously 

directed BPWCP to re-brief and provide sufficient evidence in support of its motion seeking sanctions. 

(ECF No. 421 at 3, ¶7 (“Any such motion [for costs and attorneys’ fees] must be supported with 

sufficient evidence to meet Plaintiff’s burden and to enable the Court to consider all the factors 

necessary in setting reasonable fees under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and pertinent case law.”)); see also 

See In re Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1306 (9th Cir. 1994) (“the 

district court was neither obligated to explain what type of records should be submitted, nor to request 

additional information”). 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 456 Filed 08/27/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

attorney’s own affidavits—that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the 

community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience 

and reputation”) (emphasis added); Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1110-11 (“Affidavits of the 

plaintiffs’ attorney[s] and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community . . . 

are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.”) (internal citations omitted) 

(emphasis added). 

Therefore, BPWCP’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 429) 

as BPWCP failed to meet its burden to produce sufficient evidence for the Court to award 

reasonable fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 27, 2015 

                                                                

3

 Because this order is without prejudice, it does not preclude BPWCP from seeking an award of its 

reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees from the District Court as part of its motions for sanctions currently 

pending before the Honorable Janis L. Sammartino. (See ECF Nos. 446-48.) 

Case 3:12-cv-00665-JLS-JLB Document 456 Filed 08/27/15 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4