Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05526/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05526-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

5:11-cv-05526-RMW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S 

FEES

1

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

TIMOTHY GENS and LAURA GENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COLONIAL SAVINGS, F.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:11-cv-05526-RMW 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY'S FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 173

Defendant Colonial Savings, F.A. (“Colonial”) moves for attorney’s fees incurred in 

defending the instant case. Colonial requests $163,464 in attorney’s fees. The court held a 

hearing on the motion for attorney’s fees on April 10, 2015. Counsel for Colonial appeared by 

phone. Neither plaintiffs nor plaintiffs’ counsel appeared.1

 For the reasons explained below, the 

court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. The court grants Colonial $57,650

in attorney’s fees.

 1 Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to withdraw on March 20, 2015. Dkt. No. 178. The court has 

not granted the motion to withdraw as of this order. The hearing on the motion to withdraw is 

scheduled for April 17, 2015. 

Case 5:11-cv-05526-RMW Document 185 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 6
5:11-cv-05526-RMW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S 

FEES

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

I. BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2001, plaintiffs entered into a mortgage loan transaction to acquire the 

residential property located at N2403 Cisco Road, Lake Geneva, Wisconsin (“Property”). Dkt. 

No. 129, Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) at ¶¶ 1, 5. Plaintiffs executed a promissory note 

(“Note”) and mortgage (“Mortgage”). See Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Exh.

1 & 2, Dkt. No. 98. Plaintiffs defaulted on the Mortgage, and defendant Colonial began 

foreclosure proceedings in Wisconsin. TAC ¶ 10. Plaintiffs allege that during the foreclosure 

proceedings agents of Colonial trespassed on the Property, damaged the Property, and removed 

plaintiffs’ personal items from the Property. Plaintiffs also allege that agents of Colonial left notes 

at the property threatening retaliation for plaintiffs’ attempts to stop the foreclosure through 

judicial proceedings. 

On July 20, 2011, plaintiffs initiated an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court alleging 

multiple claims against defendants, including: (1) quiet title; (2) rescission of the subject loan; (3) 

rescission of a 2008 Settlement with Colonial; (4) trespass; (5) conversion; (6) violation of the 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); (7) violation of the Unfair and 

Deceptive Business Act Practices (“UDAP”); (8) violation of the Consumer Credit Reporting 

Agencies Act (“CCRAA”); and (9) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”). See Dkt. No. 1. Defendant filed a motion to withdraw the reference on August 23, 

2011, see Dkt. No. 1, which this court granted on March 23, 2012. Dkt. No. 6.

Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part. The court 

dismissed plaintiffs’ 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th claims with leave to amend; the court 

dismissed plaintiffs’ 7th claim against Colonial with prejudice; and the court denied defendant’s

motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ 4th claim. See Dkt. No. 45. Following a judgment in the Wisconsin 

foreclosure proceedings, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, and 9th claims with 

prejudice on the basis of res judicata. Dkt. No. 85. The court later dismissed the 7th cause of 

action with prejudice as well. See Dkt. Nos. 113, 117, 122. 

Case 5:11-cv-05526-RMW Document 185 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 6
5:11-cv-05526-RMW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S 

FEES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

After the court’s March 27, 2014 order granting in part and denying in part the motion to 

dismiss the SAC, only three claims remained: trespass, conversion, and civil RICO. Colonial 

remained as the only defendant. Dkt. No. 122. Colonial then moved for summary judgment, 

which the court granted on February 6, 2015. Dkt. No. 171. Colonial now seeks its attorney’s 

fees and costs. Dkt. No. 173. 

II. ANALYSIS

As Colonial acknowledges, “[a]n award of attorney’s fees to a litigant in federal court is 

improper in the absence of a contract, an applicable statute, a finding that the losing party acted in

bad faith, or other exceptional circumstances.” Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Murrey & Son’s Co., Inc., 

824 F.2d 740, 744 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, plaintiffs explicitly agreed in their Mortgage and Note 

that defendants would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in the 

furtherance of the remedies outlined in their Mortgage and Note. The Mortgage and Note provide 

that Colonial may recover attorney’s fees related to “enforcing” the Note and Mortgage. The Note 

provides for attorney’s fees under the section related to “Borrower’s failure to pay as required.” 

Dkt. No. 98-1 at 7. The Mortgage provides for attorney’s fees relating to “protect[ing] the 

Lender’s interest in the Property” and “fees for services performed in connection with Borrower’s 

default.” Id. at 22. 

Six of plaintiffs’ claims clearly required Colonial to take action to protect its interests and 

to enable it to enforce plaintiffs’ debt obligation, specifically plaintiffs’ claims for: (1) quiet title; 

(2) rescission of the subject loan; (3) rescission of a 2008 Settlement with Colonial; (7) violation 

of the Unfair and Deceptive Business Act Practices (“UDAP”); (8) violation of the Consumer 

Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”); and (9) violation of the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Thus, Colonial may recover fees for defense of those claims pursuant 

to the terms of the Note and Mortgage contract between the plaintiffs and Colonial. 

Colonial in addition seeks fees for defending the trespass and conversion claims on the 

basis that the claims arose out of Colonial’s enforcement of the Mortgage. Specifically, Colonial 

Case 5:11-cv-05526-RMW Document 185 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 6
5:11-cv-05526-RMW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S 

FEES

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

argues that because Colonial defended the trespass claims by using the Mortgage’s right of entry 

provision, its defense was sufficiently related to the terms of the Mortgage to justify attorney’s 

fees. The court does not agree. First, it is appropriate to separate out the legal theories related to 

Colonial’s costs arising from plaintiffs’ default from the costs related to the trespass and 

conversion claims. For example, in Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co., the Seventh Circuit instructed 

the district court to consider whether plaintiff’s Title VII claims, for which she could recover 

attorney’s fees by statute, were sufficiently related to plaintiff’s non-Title VII claims such that 

attorney’s fees could be awarded on all claims. 789 F.2d 540, 551 (7th Cir. 1986). The court 

reasoned that if the non-Title VII claims share “‘a common core of facts’ or are ‘based on related 

legal theories’” to the Title VII claims, plaintiff could recover attorney’s fees on her entire case. 

Id. (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983). The court then evaluated whether “the 

claims seek relief for essentially the same course of conduct.” Zabkowicz, 789 F.2d at 551 

(quotation omitted). 

Here, the trespass and conversion claims would require proof of facts different from those 

that would have been required to defeat Colonial’s foreclosure-related claims. For example, if 

Colonial proved that the Gens were in default and it properly foreclosed on the property, the Gens 

could still prove their trespass and conversion claims. The trespass claims are based on 

allegations that agents of Colonial entered the Property without permission and damaged the 

Property. The Mortgage gives Colonial the right to enter the Property and “secure” the Property:

9. Protection of Lender’s Interest in the Property and Rights 

Under this Security Instrument. If (a) Borrower fails to perform 

the covenants and agreements contained in this Security Instrument, 

(b) there is a legal proceeding that might significantly affect 

Lender’s interest in the Property and/or rights under this Security 

Instrument . . . then Lender may do and pay for whatever is 

reasonable or appropriate to protect Lender’s interest in the 

Property . . . [including] entering the Property to make repairs, 

change locks, replace or board up doors and windows, drain water 

from pipes, eliminate building or other code violations or dangerous 

conditions, and have utilities turned on or off.

Dkt. No. 98-1 at 7-8. However, the Mortgage does not permit Colonial to damage the Property. 

Case 5:11-cv-05526-RMW Document 185 Filed 04/10/15 Page 4 of 6
5:11-cv-05526-RMW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S 

FEES

5

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

Had plaintiffs come forward with some evidence supporting their trespass and conversion claims, 

the court may have denied summary judgment on those claims despite the Mortgage’s provision 

allowing Colonial to secure the Property. Therefore, because the trespass and conversion claims 

are not sufficiently related to the facts pertaining to Colonial’s foreclosure claim, the court denies 

Colonial’s request for attorney’s fees on the trespass and conversion claims. 2 

As discussed above, Colonial may recover attorney’s fees for claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9. 

These claims were all dismissed with prejudice as of March 27, 2014. Dkt. No. 122. After that 

point, no foreclosure-related claims remained in the case. Nonetheless, plaintiffs filed their TAC 

including the six dismissed claims. Colonial therefore filed another motion to dismiss or strike. 

Dkt. No. 130. The court denied that motion as moot since the claims were no longer in the case 

when summary judgment was rendered. Dkt. No. 171. Because Colonial should not recover fees 

related to defending the trespass, conversion and RICO claims, the court will award fees through 

March 27, 2014, plus fees related to the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint that are

not clearly related to the RICO claim, plus fees incurred in filing the motion for attorney’s fees. 

Taking Colonial’s suggestion, to which plaintiffs offered no objection, the court divides the fees

equally across each claim, that is, Colonial is assumed to have spent 1/9 of its fees per claim. 

Having reviewed Colonial’s billing records, the court thus awards Colonial $57,650 in 

attorney’s fees. This figure is calculated as follows: ($75,171.50 + $5,611.50 + 5,692.50) * (6/9). 

This equation adds all of Colonial’s fees through the March 27, 2014 Order Granting In Part and 

Denying In Part Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 122), plus Colonial’s fees in moving to strike or 

dismiss the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint that are not clearly related to only to the 

RICO claim, plus Colonial’s fees related to filing the motion for attorney’s fees, and then 

 2 Colonial does not request attorney’s fees for defending the RICO claim, because Colonial seeks 

its attorney’s fees related to the RICO claim in its Bill of Costs. Dkt. No. 174. Regardless, for the 

reasons explained infra, the RICO claim, like the trespass and conversion claims, is not 

sufficiently related to the Mortgage to allow Colonial to recover its attorney’s fees incurred in 

defending the RICO claim. The RICO claim would have involved facts relating to the trespass 

incidents and the notes allegedly left at the Property. 

Case 5:11-cv-05526-RMW Document 185 Filed 04/10/15 Page 5 of 6
5:11-cv-05526-RMW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S 

FEES

6

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

discounts the fees by the proportion of claims related to the mortgage.3

Finally, the court notes that plaintiffs raised no objections to the hourly rates of Colonial’s 

counsel or to the reasonableness of the hours spent defending the case. Here, Colonial’s counsels’ 

rates appear reasonable and are below the Laffey Matrix. Dkt. No. 173 at 5, 7-8. Furthermore, 

Colonial submitted detailed billing records showing the amount of time spent per task, which also 

appear reasonable. Dkt. No. 173-2. A reasonable rate times the reasonable hours gives the 

“presumptively reasonable” amount of fees. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., C 11-1846 

LHK PSG, 2012 WL 5451411 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012), citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 

424, 434 (1983); Kraszewski v. State Farm General Ins. Co., Case No. C 79-1261 TEH, 1984 WL 

1027, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 1984). 

III.ORDER

For the reasons explained above, the court awards Colonial $57,650 in attorney’s fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2015

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

 3 For example, TransNo. 680156 is listed as “Analysis of pleading for discovery and 12b6 motion 

as to Rico claim.” Dkt. No. 173-2 at 13. The court does not award any fees for this entry because 

it is clearly related to the RICO claim. In contrast, TransNo. 683585 is listed as “Review Third 

Amended Complaint in anticipation of further Motion to Strike/Dismiss.” Id. at 14. This entry 

presumably relates to all claims in the Third Amended Complaint, including the six mortgage- related claims, and thus is included in the court’s calculation of fees. 

Case 5:11-cv-05526-RMW Document 185 Filed 04/10/15 Page 6 of 6