Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01148/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01148-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability - Authorization to collect via civil action

---

1 

15cv1148-BEN (RBB) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

WILLIAM C. FUESS, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 15cv1148-BEN (RBB) 

ORDER AWARDING COSTS AND 

ATTORNEY’S FEES [ECF NOS. 23, 

27] 

 On September 21, 2016, Plaintiff the United States filed a “Declaration of Nithya 

Senra Regarding Costs of Bringing the United States’ Motion for Sanctions” (the 

“Declaration”) with an exhibit [ECF No. 29]. No response to the Declaration was filed. 

For the reasons discussed below, sanctions are assessed against Fuess in the amount of 

$1,909.46.

I. BACKGROUND 

The United States commenced this litigation against Defendant William C. Fuess 

on May 21, 2015. (Compl. 6, ECF No. 1).1

 Plaintiff initiated this action “to reduce 

                                               

1

 The Court will cite to documents as paginated on the electronic case filing system. 

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 30 Filed 10/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

15cv1148-BEN (RBB) 

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

federal income tax, penalty, and interest assessments, along with other accruals that have 

not yet been formally assessed, against Defendant William C. Fuess to judgment.” (Id. at 

2.) The United States contends that Fuess failed to pay $286,574.24 in taxes from the 

years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012. (Id. at 3-5.) 

Plaintiff asks for a judgment in this amount, and it additionally seeks “accrued but 

unassessed interest and other statutory additions, along with statutory interest and other 

additions accruing after April 30, 2015, less any applicable credits and payments,” as 

well as its costs. (Id. at 6.) 

On May 25, 2016, the United States filed a Motion for Discovery Sanctions [ECF 

No. 15]. After a hearing, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part 

this motion. (Mins. 1, July 5, 2016, ECF No. 20.) The Court set a deadline of July 26, 

2016, for Plaintiff to file a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions in connection with 

Defendant’s responses to interrogatories and requests for production. (Id.) On July 26, 

2016, the United States filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Discovery 

Sanctions [ECF No. 23]. There, among other requests, Plaintiff asked for its “reasonable 

expenses, including attorney’s fees, associated with bringing this motion to compel 

discovery and motion for discovery sanctions.” (Mot. Compel Disc. & Mot. Disc. 

Sanctions Attach. #1 Mem. P. & A. 10, ECF No. 23.) Following a hearing, the Court 

issued an order granting the United States’ request for sanctions under Rule 37. (Mins. 1, 

Sept. 7, 2016, ECF No. 27.) The Court set a deadline of September 21, 2016, for 

Plaintiff’s counsel “to submit her declaration regarding expenses and attorney’s fees.” 

(Id.) Fuess was given the deadline of October 5, 2016, to respond to Plaintiff’s 

declaration. (Id.) The United States filed the Declaration on September 21, 2016 [ECF 

No. 29], but Defendant did not file a response. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

“By the very nature of its language, sanctions imposed under Rule 37 must be left 

to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” O’Connell v. Fernandez–Pol, 542 F. App’x 

546, 547-48 (9th Cir. 2013) (unpublished memorandum disposition) (citing Craig v. Far 

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 30 Filed 10/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

15cv1148-BEN (RBB) 

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

West Eng’g Co., 265 F.2d 251, 260 (9th Cir. 1959)). “Overall, sanctions imposed under 

Rule 37 should deter the Defendant’s conduct, and remedy any prejudice it caused the 

Plaintiff.” S. Cal. Stroke Rehab. Assocs. v. Nautilus, Civil No. 09–CV–744 JLS (AJB), 

2010 WL 2998839, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 2010) (citing Pioneer Drive, LLC. v. Nissan 

Diesel America, Inc., 262 F.R.D. 552, 560 (D. Mont. 2009)). 

III. DISCUSSION 

In her Declaration, Nithya Senra, counsel for the United States, indicates that the 

total cost of bringing the Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Discovery 

Sanctions is $1,909.46. (Decl. Senra Regarding Costs 4, ECF No. 29.) This number is 

the total of $653.66 in costs, and six and a half hours of attorney’s fees, billable at 

$193.20 per hour. (Id.) The Court addresses these expenses separately. 

A. Costs 

 Senra indicates that the $653.66 in costs is the sum of “airfare, hotel, taxi, meals 

and incidental per diem reimbursement” associated with her travel to the hearing on the 

Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Discovery Sanctions. (Id.) Attached to her 

Declaration is a travel voucher summary of expenses paid by the United States in 

connection with her travel. (Id. Attach. #1 Ex. A, at 2-4.) This voucher summary reflects 

the amount claimed by Plaintiff. Moreover, the costs represent reasonable expenses 

incurred in bringing the Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Discovery 

Sanctions. The United States is awarded $653.66 in costs. 

B. Attorney’s Fees 

 Senra spent six and a half hours bringing the Motion to Compel Discovery and 

Motion for Discovery Sanctions. (Decl. Senra Regarding Costs 4, ECF No. 29.) She 

attributes five hours of her time to drafting the motion, half an hour to attempting to meet 

and confer with Fuess, and one hour to preparing for and attending the hearing on the 

motion. (Id. at 2-3.) According to Plaintiff, the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 

28 U.S.C. § 2412, set the hourly rate at $125 as of March 29, 1996, and the inflationadjusted rate is $193.20. (Id. at 3-4.) 

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 30 Filed 10/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

15cv1148-BEN (RBB) 

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

 “EAJA provides that . . . attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per 

hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor 

. . . justifies a higher fee.” Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)). “District courts have been determining the cost-of-living 

adjustment by multiplying the basic EAJA rate by the current consumer price index for 

urban consumers (CPI–U), and then dividing the product by the CPI–U in the month that 

the cap was imposed . . . .” Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(citing Ramon–Sepulveda v. INS, 863 F.2d 1458, 1463 (9th Cir. 1988)). Courts are to 

use the consumer price index for urban consumers at the time the work was conducted. 

See id. (“Enhancing the EAJA’s base rate by the CPI–U that is current in the year when 

the fee is earned compensates for increases in the cost of living between the time that the 

EAJA was enacted and the time that the fee was earned.”). 

 Senra asserts that the consumer price index for urban consumers was 240.647 in 

July 2016, when the work on the Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Discovery 

Sanctions was conducted. (Decl. Senra Regarding Costs 3, ECF No. 29.) She further 

indicates that the consumer price index for urban consumers in March of 1996 was 155.7. 

(Id.) After reviewing the relevant data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Court 

finds that these numbers are accurate. See CPI Detailed Report: Data for July 2016, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 4, 70 (Malik Crawford, Jonathan Church & Bradley Akin eds., 

2016), http://www.bls.gov/cpi/#tables (select “CPI Detailed Report (complete text and 

tables) July 2016”). Further, Senra’s calculation of the enhanced EAJA base rate as 

$193.20 is accurate and consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Sorenson. The rate 

for six and a half hours of attorney time totals $1,255.80, which is the amount that 

Plaintiff seeks in attorney’s fees. The Court finds that this is a reasonable award of 

attorney’s fees for the amount of time spent bringing the Motion to Compel Discovery 

and Motion for Discovery Sanctions. As a result, the United States is awarded $1,255.80

in attorney’s fees. 

//

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 30 Filed 10/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

15cv1148-BEN (RBB) 

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

IV. CONCLUSION 

 In sum, Plaintiff is awarded $653.66 in costs and $1,255.80 in attorney’s fees, 

totaling $1909.46. Defendant shall pay this amount to the United States within thirty 

days of the filing of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 18, 2016 ___________________________________ 

 Hon. Ruben B. Brooks 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

cc: Judge Benitez 

 All Parties of Record 

Case 3:15-cv-01148-BEN-RBB Document 30 Filed 10/19/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5