Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00418/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00418-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1132 E.R.I.S.A.

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Warren N. Richards, IV, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Holsum Bakery, Inc., an Arizona

Corporation; Flowers Foods, Inc., a

Georgia Corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-00418-PHX-MHM

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ Motion for Application for Reasonable

Attorney’s Fees. (Dkt. #50). Having considered the Parties’ briefs, the Court issues the

following Order.

I. BACKGROUND

In a previous Order, this Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion

for Disqualification of Plaintiff’s Counsel for Improper Ex Parte Communication in Violation

of Ethical Rule 4.2. (Dkt. #49). As part of the relief granted, this Court awarded Defendants’

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with investigating and responding to the

inappropriate ex-parte communications. On November 19, 2009, Defendants filed the instant

motion, requesting $27,381.16 in fees and costs and supporting their request with the

required affidavit. Plaintiff responded on December 7, 2009, disputing the reasonableness

Case 2:09-cv-00418-GMS Document 76 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

of Defendants’ fee request and suggesting an award of $5,000.00 instead. (Dkt. #58).

II. DISCUSSION

In determining a reasonable fee award, this Court considers a number of factors. See

L.R.Civ. 54.2( c)(3) (setting forth the various factors that bare on a determination of a

reasonable fee award). The factors most pertinent to this case include: (1) the time and labor

required of counsel; (b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; (3) the skill

requisite to perform the legal service properly; and (4) and the customary fee charged in

matters of the type involved. Id.; Kessler v. Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. of Hawaii, Inc., 639

F.2d 498, 500 n.1 (9th Cir. 1981) (“The Court need not consider all . . . factors, but only

those called into question by the case at hand and necessary to support the reasonableness

of the fee award.”). 

The issues raised in Defendants’ disqualification motion were not simple, but they

were not overly complicated either. Accordingly, the Court finds that the time and labor

spent on the motion was excessive in relation to the difficulty of the legal issue. Five

separate attorneys, for example, worked on this fairly straight forward motion, reply, and fee

application matter, and a fair amount of their time was spent engaging in the fairly abstract

activity of “reviewing.” See Metro Data Sys., Inc. v. Durango Sys., Inc., 597 F. Supp. 244,

245 (D. Ariz. 1984) (noting the amorphous quality of the phrase “review” in the context of

an attorney’s fees motion). In light of the foregoing, the Court, in its discretion, finds that

an award of $13,000.00 is appropriate in this case and will reasonably compensate

Defendants.

/ / / 

Case 2:09-cv-00418-GMS Document 76 Filed 06/29/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants attorney’s fees in the amount of

$13,000.00

DATED this 25th day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00418-GMS Document 76 Filed 06/29/10 Page 3 of 3