Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00004/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00004-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLORIN ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FAMSA, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00004-JCS 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' 

FEES

The parties in this case brought a dispute before the Court regarding post-judgment 

discovery. Defendants had refused to produce documents in response to certain discovery 

requests, even though Defendants’ counsel did not contest the propriety of the requests. At a 

hearing on March 17, 2015, the Court ordered Defendants to produce certain documents and pay 

Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the discovery dispute. The Court requested that 

the parties file declarations addressing the amount of attorneys’ fees to be paid. See Order (dkt. 

101).

Plaintiff’s counsel Elyse Whitehead filed a declaration stating that Plaintiff incurred 

$5,049 in fees for its counsel’s work preparing for and participating in an in-person meeting with 

defense counsel, preparing and revising the parties’ Joint Letter to the Court addressing their 

positions, and preparing for and attending the hearing. Whitehead Decl. (dkt. 102) ¶¶ 14−15. 

Whitehead states she spent 6.5 hours on these tasks and her colleague Ben Suter devoted 4.5 

hours. Id. ¶ 15. Whitehead’s declaration does not itemize the hours spent by either attorney on 

any given task. See generally id.

Defense counsel Richard Arshonsky filed a declaration in response, stating that although 

he “certainly ha[s] no issues with Mr. Suter or Ms. Whitehead’s qualifications or their hourly rates 

. . . it would be unfair for Defendants to have to pay for two attorneys performing the same task at 

Case 3:13-cv-00004-JCS Document 104 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

a combined hourly rate of $954.” Arshonsky Decl. (dkt. 103) ¶¶ 3−4. Arshonsky states that both 

Whitehead and Suter have been present for nearly every meeting, telephone call, and hearing in 

this case, including the hearing on the instant dispute. Id. ¶ 5.

The Court finds that in a case of this magnitude—Plaintiff is seeking to collect a stipulated 

judgment of five million dollars— it is not unreasonable for two attorneys to participate in 

meetings and calls with opposing counsel, or for two attorneys to attend court hearings. The Court 

also finds reasonable the eleven hours in total spent by Plaintiff’s counsel in bringing the postjudgment discovery dispute before the Court. Defendants are therefore ORDERED to pay the 

$5,049 in attorneys’ fees that Plaintiff incurred in this dispute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00004-JCS Document 104 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2