Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02752/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02752-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Negotiable Instrument

---

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

 The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion For Clarification Of Briefing Schedule, Expansion Of Time

And Relief From Page Limitations Pursuant To Local Rule 7-11. (Docket No. 82.) 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAVOURED DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

ALTON A. LOMAS,

Defendant. /

No. C06-02752 MJJ

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION, DENYING

MOTION FOR DE NOVO REVIEW, AND

DENYING MOTION FOR EXPANSION

OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion For De Novo Review Of The Report And

Recommendation On Defendant’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs; For Expansion Of

Record, And Amended Written Objection To Magistrate Judge’s Report And Recommendation On

Defendant’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs In Accord With 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) And Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b). (Docket No. 79.) After review of the Motion, the Court deems it appropriate for

resolution without an opposition from Plaintiff. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES

Defendant’s Motion and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s Report And Recommendation.1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff originally filed this action on February 11, 2006, on an alleged loan obligation that it

held against Defendant. On January 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice

Case 3:06-cv-02752-MJJ Document 90 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 4
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

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(20. In a March 23, 2007 Order, this Court granted

Plaintiff’s request but imposed conditions on dismissing the matter without prejudice to which

Plaintiff stipulated at oral argument, including an award of “reasonable costs and attorney fees” to

Defnedant “for unnecessary expenses caused by the litigation”, citing the standard established by

Koch v. Hankins, 8 F.3d 650, 651 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court’s March 23, 2007 Order further set a

schedule for Defendant’s submission of “papers supporting his request for costs and attorneys fees”

and an opposition by Plaintiff thereto, and indicated that after receiving Plaintiff’s opposition the

matter would be deemed submitted.

After Defendant filed its Motion For Award Of Taxable Costs And Attorney’s Fees on April

14, 2007, the Court referred the Motion for determination to Magistrate Judge Zimmerman. Upon an

administrative request by Defendant, the Magistrate permitted Defendant to file a further reply brief

and supporting materials. 

On May 17, 2007, the Magistrate field a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending that the Court denying all fees and costs based on the evidence before him, and

vacating the hearing date on Defendant’s Motion.

On October 15, 2007, this Court granted Defendant leave to file a motion seeking expansion

of the record and de novo review of the R&R.

DISCUSSION

A. Expansion Of The Record Is Not Warranted.

Defendant requests that the Court consider evidence that Defendant did not attempt to put

before the Magistrate. 

Courts have identified several factors relevant to deciding whether to accept additional

evidence after a Magistrate’ recommendation has been issued, including the moving party's reasons

for not originally submitting the evidence; the importance of the omitted evidence to the moving

party's case; whether the evidence was previously available to the non-moving party when it

responded to the motion before the Magistrate; and the likelihood of unfair prejudice to the

non-moving party if the evidence is accepted. 

Case 3:06-cv-02752-MJJ Document 90 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 4
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

See Freeman v. County of Bexar, 142 F.3d 848, 862 (5th Cir.1998). 

The Court finds that these factors do not support allowing Defendant to supplement the record

with more detailed billing information than was submitted to the Magistrate. 

The evidence that Defendant now seeks to put before this Court was previously available to

Defendants, and Defendants have not provided an adequate explanation as to why it failed to

introduce this level of detail earlier. The Court finds Defendants’ arguments in this regard entirely

unconvincing. Defendant contends that the Magistrate “summarily recommended denial . . . without

providing Defendant an opportunity to supplement the evidentiary record” (p. 3:5-7) and that the

Magistrate was “unwilling[] to entertain additional argument or evidence in the first instance.” After

reviewing the record, the Court rejects these assertions. This Court’s March 23, 2007 order put

Defendant on notice that he would need to make a showing to satisfy the Koch standard. Moreover,

after Defendant filed his request for fees, Plaintiff’s opposition specifically challenged the sufficiency

of Defendant’s showing that the requested fees were of no use in the forthcoming arbitration. The

Magistrate expressly granted Defendant leave to file a reply, even though this Court’s initial briefing

schedule had not contemplated a reply. Defendant’s reply was then accompanied by additional detail,

which the Magistrate correctly observed “arguably belonged in the motion.” The Court rejects

Defendant’s contention that he did not have an adequate opportunity to put detailed billing

information into the record, or to adequately brief the matter.

Moreover, the information that Defendant now seeks to add to the record was not previously

available to Plaintiff when it responded to Defendant’s original submission to the Magistrate. If

accepted into the record by this Court, Plaintiff would be required to unnecessarily re-litigate the fees

question on an entirely new record, incurring additional expense as a result of Defendant’s failure to

adequately documents its fees requests in the first instance. 

“The district judge will normally not consider arguments, case law, or evidentiary material

which could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.” Tenen v.

Winter, 15 F. Supp. 2d 270, 272 (W.D.N.Y. 1998); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,

673-75 (1980) (“Normally, the judge, on application, will consider the record which has been

developed before the magistrate and make his own determination on the basis of that record. . .”). 

Case 3:06-cv-02752-MJJ Document 90 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Moreover, “[l]itigants may not . . . use the magistrate judge as a mere sounding-board for the

sufficiency of the evidence.” Freeman, 142 F.3d at 852. The Court finds that there is no reason to

depart from these principles here, and therefore denies Defendant’s request to expand the record to

include billing information not provided to the Magistrate.

B. The Magistrate Correctly Determined That No Fees Are Appropriate.

This Court has wide discretion to consider and reconsider the Magistrate’s recommendation. 

See Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 673-75. Here, the Court has considered the R&R and agrees with the

Magistrate Judge's reasoning. 

The Magistrate correctly determined that the record before him did not support an award of

any attorney’s fees under Koch v. Hankins, 8 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 1993). Defendant bore the burden of

submitting evidence to establish the hours worked and rates claimed, but did not provide billing

records, detailed summaries, or information at a comparable level of detail. The categories of work

utilized by Defendant to summarize did not provide sufficient information to conduct a proper Koch

analysis as to which work was not useful in continuing litigation between the parties. Moreover, the

lack of specificity of Defendant’s summaries did not allow a determination as to the reasonableness

of the individual requests. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion and ADOPTS the R&R. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02752-MJJ Document 90 Filed 10/23/07 Page 4 of 4