Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02181/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02181-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

THOMAS C. HEBRANK, Federal

Equity Receiver,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY

FEES

[ECF No. 30]

v.

LINMAR IV, LLC, a California

corporation, and Does 1-25,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas C. Hebrank’s (“Plaintiff”) supplemental

briefing regarding attorney fees. (ECF No. 30.) Defendant LinMar IV, LLC.

(“Defendant”) filed an opposition. (ECF No. 31.)

On October 9, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s

motion for attorney fees (the “Attorney Fees Order”). (ECF No. 29.) Finding that the

Plaintiff had failed to adequately detail the attorney fees he was requesting for work

conducted after July 31, 2014 and anticipated for post-judgment collection, the Court

ordered that the parties provide supplemental briefing on this issue. (Id. at 8.) The

standard governing attorney fees and the facts of this case are set forth in the Attorney

Fees Order. (See id. at 1–4.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s proposed attorney fees are unreasonable for two

reasons: (1) the same reasons that Defendant argued in its opposition to Plaintiff’s

original motion for attorney fees, and (2) the fees Plaintiff now requests are higher than

- 1 - 13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02181-GPC-JMA Document 33 Filed 12/04/14 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

originally requested. (ECF No. 31, at 3.) The Court rejects both of Plaintiff’s

arguments. First, the Court has already rejected the arguments Defendant initiallymade

in opposing Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees. (See ECF No. 29, at 5–6.) Second, the

Court rejected Plaintiff’s proposed fees because the fees were speculative and

insufficiently detailed, not because they were too high. (See id. at 7–8.) It is not

unreasonable that the amounts would go up considering Plaintiff’s initial fee requests

were based in part on speculation and his current fee requests are based on actual time

spent by his attorneys. While the fact that the requests have increased does not

automatically make them unreasonable, the Court is still required to review Plaintiff’s

request for reasonableness. See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 997 P2d 511, 515 (Cal.

2000).

For work done after July 31, 2014 on Plaintiff’s motions for attorney fees,

Plaintiff requests a total of $18,505.80 in attorney fees for the three LinMar Lawsuits.

(ECF No. 30 ¶ 4.) Divided among the three LinMar Lawsuits, Plaintiff is requesting

$6,168.60 in this lawsuit. (Id.) Plaintiff breaks down the hourly rates he is requesting

as follows:

1. $463.50 per hour for 9.20 hours by senior associate Ted Fates; and

2. $387.00 per hour for 36.80 hours by junior associate Josi Swonetz.

(Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel initially stated that Ted Fates and Josi Swonetz had spent

approximately 31.8 hours drafting the initial motions, (see ECF No. 22-2 ¶ 10), yet now

statesthat 37.3 hours were spent on the initial motion, (see ECF No. 30, Ex. A). In light

of the inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s counsel’s statements, the Court finds the 47 hours

spent on the motions for attorney fees to be unreasonable. The motions for attorney

fees contain approximately 10 pages of argument and 9 pages of declaration. (See, e.g.,

ECF Nos. 22, 22-1, 22-2.) The Court finds that a reduction of five hours, the

approximate difference between Plaintiff’s counsel’s two statements, at the blended

rate of $425.25 to be appropriate, a total reduction of $2,126.25. For time spent

preparing the attorney fees motion and reply, this comes out to an award of $16,379.55

- 2 - 13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02181-GPC-JMA Document 33 Filed 12/04/14 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

for all three LinMar Lawsuits and thus the Court awards $5,459.85 in this case.

For anticipated post-judgment collection work, Plaintiffseeks a total of $15,512

for 38.5 hours of work. (ECF No. 30, Ex. B.) In Plaintiff’s initial motion, Plaintiff’s

counsel stated that he anticipated “at least 10 hours” of post-judgment collection work.

(ECF No. 22-2 ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s counsel now statesthat he anticipates over three times

that many hours. (ECF No. 30, Ex. B.) While Plaintiff’s counsel statesthat his estimate

is based on “Defendant’s conduct to date,” (see ECF No. 30 ¶ 6), Plaintiff offers no

evidence to support why the anticipated post-judgment collection work will now take

38.5 hours as opposed to the “at least 10 hours” Plaintiff’s counsel initially estimated.

In light of the differing estimates given by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds that the

38.5 requested hours to be excessive and a reduction of 20 hours to be appropriate

based on the two estimates as well as actual work estimated. (See ECF No. 30, Ex. B.)

At the blended rate of $425.25 that comes out to a reduction of $8,505. Subtracted from

the initial estimate of $15,512, the Court finds an award of $7,007 to be reasonable.

Divided across all three LinMar Lawsuits, the Court awards $2,335.67 in this case for

anticipated post-judgment collection work.

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is

awarded $7,795.52 in attorney fees for this case for the time spent preparing its

attorney fees motions and for the time anticipated for post-judgment collection work.

DATED: December 4, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13-cv-2181-GPC-JMA

Case 3:13-cv-02181-GPC-JMA Document 33 Filed 12/04/14 Page 3 of 3