Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01893/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01893-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

E-filed 11/30/2016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST FINANCIAL SECURITY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FREEDOM EQUITY GROUP, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.15-cv-01893-HRL 

ORDER ON MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 89

In its October 7, 2016, order on plaintiff First Financial Security’s (“FFS”) motion for 

sanctions related to defendant Freedom Equity Group’s (“FEG”) failure to comply with this 

court’s discovery orders, the court stated:

FFS is entitled to the attorney fees and costs reasonably incurred in the 

course of bringing its sanctions motion and filing its supplemental briefing 

because FEG, by repeatedly failing to comply with discovery orders, caused 

FFS to incur these fees and expenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). FEG’s 

failures were not substantially justified and no other circumstances make an 

award of expenses unjust.

Dkt. No. 88. FFS now moves the court for $22,393.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,353.88 in costs

related to its sanctions motion and supplemental briefings. Dkt. No. 89. FEG objects solely to the 

number of hours counsel for FFS spent on what FEG states is a straightforward matter. Dkt. No. 

96. For the reasons below, the court orders FEG to pay FFS $21,429.50 in fees and $1,353.88 in 

costs.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing applications for attorneys’ fees, the court begins with the lodestar method and 

multiplies the number of hours reasonably spent by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The court reviews time records submitted by the applicant 

to determine whether the hours were reasonably incurred or if any hours were “unnecessary, 

Case 5:15-cv-01893-HRL Document 108 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 4
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

duplicative or excessive,” or inadequately documented. True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. 

McKesson Corp., No. 13-cv-02219-HSG (DMR), 2015 WL 3453459, at *1 (N.D. Cal., May 29, 

2015). To determine reasonable hourly rates, “the court must look to the prevailing rate in the 

community—generally, the forum in which the district court sits—for similar work performed by 

attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Id. The fee applicant bears the burden 

to “produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits—that the requested 

rates” are reasonable in light of prevailing rates in the community. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 

895, n.11 (1984). Courts may also award fees reasonably incurred in preparing motions for 

attorneys’ fees. True Health Chiropractic, 2015 WL 3453459, at *1.

FEG has not challenged the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by FFS’s 

timekeepers. These rates are between $310-$340 per hour for FFS’s attorneys, and $180 per hour 

for its paralegal. Dkt. No. 89, Davidson Decl., Hager Decl., Solomon Decl., Seguin Decl. Though 

FFS did not submit declarations or affidavits beyond those of the attorneys claiming fees to 

establish the reasonableness of these hourly rates, FFS did cite to several cases discussing rates 

prevailing in the Bay Area and the Northern District of California for similar types of work. See

True Health Chiropractic, 2015 WL 3453459, at *2 (citing In re Magsafe Apple Power Adapter 

Litig., No. 5:09-CV-01911-EJD, 2015 WL 428105, at *12 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2015) (finding rates 

of $560-$800 reasonable for partners, $285-$510 reasonable for associates, and $150-$240 

reasonable for paralegals)); Ruch v. AM Retail Grp., Inc., No. 14-cv-05352-MEJ, 2016 WL 

5462451, at *11 (N.D. Cal., Sep. 28, 2016) (citing cases finding hourly rates in excess of those 

claimed here to be reasonable). The court is satisfied from this presentation that the hourly rates 

charged by FFS’s timekeepers are in line with those prevailing in the community.

In challenging the reasonableness of the hours FFS spent on its motion for sanctions and 

supplemental briefing, FEG does not point to any particular time entries that were unreasonable, 

but merely objects to the total time spent. FFS claims fees for 59.1 hours of attorney time and 13 

hours of paralegal time related to its motion for sanctions and supplemental briefing and for 4 

hours of attorney time related to preparing the present motion for fees.

As an initial matter, courts in this district have found this approximate number of hours 

Case 5:15-cv-01893-HRL Document 108 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 4
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

reasonable for motions for discovery sanctions. True Health Chiropractic, 2015 WL 3453459, at 

*2-4; Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc., No. 13-cv-4608-RS (KAW), 2015 WL 154522 (N.D. Cal., 

Jan. 12, 2015). Additionally, even for relatively straightforward motions, total amounts of time

that seem high at first glance may still be reasonable when broken down and explained. Ferland 

v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1151 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Some systematic perusal of the 

actual billing entries will often confirm that the reason for the seemingly high fee was not 

inefficiency, but careful compliance with the attorneys’ responsibilities.”). As stated above, the 

court must review the time records submitted to determine if the hours claimed are adequately 

documented and to decide if any are “unnecessary, duplicative or excessive.” True Health 

Chiropractic, 2015 WL 3453459, at *1. 

After reviewing each of the time entries submitted, the court finds that the time claimed for 

preparing the sanctions motion and supplemental materials is adequately documented and 

reasonable, with two exceptions. First, the court subtracts .4 hours/$126 from the time/amount 

charged on May 2, 2016, by Clifford S. Davidson, because counsel for FFS failed to subtract the 

time spent on other matters from the block billing entry on that date. See Dkt. No. 89, Davidson 

Decl., Ex. A. Second, the court subtracts .5 hours/$157.50 from the time/amount charged on July 

12, 2016, by Clifford S. Davidson, because the task for which the time is claimed is connected to a 

different (albeit related) proceeding. Id. Finally, the court subtracts 2 hours/$680 from the request 

for fees related to preparing the present motion, as FFS failed to submit adequate documentation 

for this time and only submits an estimate of the time spent. See Pinterest, Inc. v. Pintrips, Inc., 

No. 13-cv-4608-RS (KAW), 2015 WL 1545422, at *7 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2015) (reducing fees 

because the plaintiff relied on estimates of time spent). The court thus subtracts a total of $963.50 

from the fees requested, and awards $21,429.50 in fees.

FEG does not object to the $1,353.88 in costs requested by FFS, and the court finds these 

costs well documented and reasonable.

CONCLUSION

The court orders FEG to pay FFS $21,429.50 in fees and $1,353.88 in costs. FEG 

shall pay these amounts within 14 days of the date of this order.

Case 5:15-cv-01893-HRL Document 108 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 4
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/30/2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01893-HRL Document 108 Filed 11/30/16 Page 4 of 4