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

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAVOURED DEVELOPMENTS

LIMITED,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ALTON A. LOMAS, et al.

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-2752 MJJ (BZ)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

By order dated April 19, 2007, the Honorable Martin J.

Jenkins referred to me for report and recommendation

defendant’s motion for $194,994.50 in attorneys’ fees and

costs. Defendant’s motion is premised on Judge Jenkins’ order

dismissing plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Docket No. 39. Therein, Judge

Jenkins granted defendant’s request to seek attorneys’ fees

and costs “for unnecessary expenses caused by the litigation.” 

Id. at 6 (citing Koch v. Hankins, 8 F.3d 650, 651 (9th Cir.

1993)). Having reviewed the papers, I find no need for

argument and vacate the hearing scheduled for May 30, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-02752-MJJ Document 57 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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 In its opposition, plaintiff objected to my order

allowing defendant to file a reply brief. While I know of no

authority barring me from ordering the briefing I find

necessary to resolve the questions before me, plaintiff’s

concerns may have been prescient since the reply included much

material which arguably belonged in the motion. In view of

this disposition, plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED, as is his

request for leave to file an amended opposition.

2

In Koch, the Ninth Circuit held that “a defendant is

entitled only to recover, as a condition of dismissal under

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), attorneys fees or costs for work which

is not useful in continuing litigation between the parties.” 

8 F.3d at 652. The Circuit reversed the district court’s

award of attorneys fees because the bill of costs set forth

only lump sum amounts for categories of work, and provided no

basis for determining whether or to what degree the work would

have been useful in the continuing litigation. Id.

In light of defendant’s papers,1 I conclude that I cannot

conduct a proper Koch analysis. For one thing, I find that

the categories of work utilized by defendant to summarize its

billing provide little indication as to what information was

gleaned from the work, and whether or how that information may

be useful in the forthcoming arbitration. Unsworn

proclamations that the work included within a category has no

on-going use are conclusory and are not meaningful. And while

defendant provides with his reply some sworn explanation of

the uselessness of some of the work, those explanations relate

to a very few of the subcategories. 

Moreover, even if defendant’s Koch showing is sufficient

as to some work categories, the record precludes me from

assessing the reasonableness of the requests. “The most

Case 3:06-cv-02752-MJJ Document 57 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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 The lack of specificity of defendant’s summaries is

particularly troubling in the Koch context. For example, I may

agree with defendant that the information produced by work

subcategories 1(a) through 1(e) has no on-going use. I may,

however, disagree as to subcategories 1(f) through 1(h). 

Because defendant has given only lump sum fee figures for all

of category one, I have no way of separating out the fees by

subcategory to recommend a proper award. 

3

useful starting point for determining the amount of a

reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on

the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” 

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). As the party

seeking attorneys’ fees, defendant bears the burden of

submitting evidence to support the hours worked and rates

claimed. Id. at 433. No billing records or detailed

summaries were produced.

Plaintiff does not quibble with defendant’s rates. The

billing summaries provided by defendant, however, do not state

which attorneys or paralegals worked on which subcatagorized

task, or whether more than one attorney and/or paralegal

worked on a task. Thus, I cannot determine how many hours

were spent on each task, or whose hours were deployed for

what. The cost breakdown also lacks specificity as to the

relationship between the costs requested and the work tasks

performed.2 All these concerns are heightened by the

substantial size of the request given the limited amount of

work that seems to have been done on the case as reflected by

the court’s docket.

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-02752-MJJ Document 57 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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

For the reasons stated herein, I recommend DENYING

defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Dated: May 17, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\Favoured Developments\atty fees.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-02752-MJJ Document 57 Filed 05/17/07 Page 4 of 4