Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02687/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-02687-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUSTAINABLE PAVEMENT 

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICH HOLIDAY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-02687-WBS-KJN

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(ECF No. 84)

INTRODUCTION

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff Sustainable Pavement Technologies, LLC’s 

motion for attorneys’ fees and costs against defendant Rich Holiday.1 (ECF No. 84.) Following

the hearing on this matter, which Holiday did not attend, the court ordered plaintiff to review its

request for attorneys’ fees and costs to “ensure they are properly attributable to prosecuting the 

case against this particular defendant” and explain how the attorneys’ fees that plaintiff is 

requesting are associated with defendant Holiday. (ECF No. 92 at 2.) Plaintiff filed a 

supplemental declaration and second supplemental declaration, further explaining its request for 

attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF Nos. 90, 93.) For the reasons set forth below, the court

 

1 The motion was referred to the undersigned for findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 88.)

Case 2:17-cv-02687-WBS-KJN Document 99 Filed 01/07/20 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

2

recommends granting plaintiff’s motion and awarding plaintiff $36,593.30 in fees and costs. 

BACKGROUND

On December 26, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this diversity action against Defendant Rich 

Holiday, an independent contractor who previously performed work for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 

2.) Plaintiff alleged that Holiday embezzled at least $200,000 by forging documents and sought 

treble damages pursuant to California Penal Code § 496(c). (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff’s complaint 

also named J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”) and Bank of America, two banks that Holiday 

allegedly used to embezzle the money. (See ECF No. 1.) On March 8, 2018, Bank of America 

was dismissed from the case. (ECF Nos. 18, 19.) On February 19, 2019, Chase was dismissed

following a settlement agreement between the parties. (ECF No. 68.) 

On February 16, 2018, the court entered default against Holiday. (ECF No. 15.) On May 

21, 2018, Holiday moved to set aside the default, which the court denied. (ECF Nos. 28, 35.) On 

March 13, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default judgment against Holiday, asserting 

actual damages in the amount of $304,727 and seeking treble damages under § 496(c), totaling

$914,181. (ECF No. 70 at 5.) 

On September 23, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment. (ECF 

No. 80.) On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

(ECF No. 84). 

DISCUSSION

Generally, attorneys’ fees and costs may not be awarded unless the fees are provided for 

by contract or where a statute allows for their recovery. Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 

1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1998). Under California Penal Code § 496(c), “reasonable” attorneys’ fees 

may be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff. Sweeteners Plus Inc. v. Myers, 2013 WL 12132037, at 

*6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2013).

“[D]istrict courts have considerable discretion in determining attorney’s fees.” Corder v. 

Gates, 947 F.2d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1991). A court may reduce “attorney’s fees when work 

associated with claims against multiple defendants [fall] upon the only defendant to survive 

dismissal.” Cook Productions, LLC v. Szerlip, 2017 WL 4883220, at * 5–6, (D. Haw. Oct. 30, 

Case 2:17-cv-02687-WBS-KJN Document 99 Filed 01/07/20 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

3

2017) (reducing fees “to reflect the amount of time that is fairly attributable to the claims against” 

the only remaining defendant). However, apportionment of fees and costs is not necessary where 

claims involve a common core of facts or are based on related legal theories. Bagdasaryan v. 

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 6520591, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2017) (internal 

citation and quotations omitted).

Here, it is evident that plaintiff prevailed (ECF No. 80), and is therefore entitled to 

attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Penal Code § 496(c). Additionally, the court 

finds that counsel’s rate of $380/hour reasonable for an experienced attorney practicing 

commercial litigation. See Monterrubio v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 291 F.R.D. 443, 460–61 (E.D. 

Cal. 2013) (finding $400/hour for partners an appropriate rate).

Finally, the number of hours expended by plaintiff is reasonable under the circumstances. 

Plaintiff’s argument is well taken that its efforts to secure a judgment against Chase were so 

intertwined with its efforts to pursue its case against defendant Holiday that apportionment would 

be impractical. As plaintiff notes, its settlement with Chase directly reduced Holiday’s own 

liability, and plaintiff’s claims against Chase only came into existence as a result of Holiday’s 

embezzlement of plaintiff’s money. (ECF No. 93 at 3.) Therefore, most if not all of the time 

pursuing its claim against Chase had a direct effect on plaintiff’s claim against Holiday.

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to $34,025.20 in attorneys’ fees2and $2,568.10 in costs it is 

requesting, totaling $36,593.30. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (ECF No. 84) be GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff be awarded a total of $36,593.30 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

 

2 This number is reached by multiplying the hours expended, less the hours consented to be 

reduced by plaintiff, (89.54) (ECF No. 93 ¶ 3) by the rate ($380/hour). 

Case 2:17-cv-02687-WBS-KJN Document 99 Filed 01/07/20 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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED

Dated: January 7, 2020

2687.sust

Case 2:17-cv-02687-WBS-KJN Document 99 Filed 01/07/20 Page 4 of 4