Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02524/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02524-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 7:25 Fraud - Commodities Leverage Contracts

---

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

RONALD STEPHEN DRAPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KCG AMERICAS LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02524-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 70

Pending before the Court is Defendant Main Street Trading Inc.’s (“Main Street”) motion 

for attorneys’ fees and costs. See Dkt. No. 70 (“Mot.”). For the following reasons, the Court 

exercises its discretion to DENY the motion for attorneys’ fees.

On August 27, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that 

Plaintiff Ronald S. Draper’s federal claims were time-barred under the Commodity Exchange Act 

because Draper filed his lawsuit more than two years after his claims had accrued. See Dkt. No. 

66 at 7–9. Main Street filed this motion for attorneys’ fees on September 10, 2018, seeking 

$66,093.50 in attorneys’ fees and $620 in costs. See Mot. Draper opposed on September 24, in a 

filing that does not directly respond to the arguments raised in support of fee award but rather 

attacks the underlying proceedings. See Dkt. No. 75 (“Opp.”). Main Street replied on October 1. 

See Dkt. No. 78 (“Reply”).1

Main Street contends that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the terms of an 

account agreement between Draper and KCG Americas LLC, for which Main Street served as the 

introducing broker. See Mot. at 2–3. The account agreement Main Street references provides that 

the “Broker shall be entitled to recover its attorneys fees . . . if it is the prevailing party in any 

 

1 The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is 

deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

Case 4:18-cv-02524-HSG Document 96 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 2
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

dispute with Customer” and that “laws of the State of Illinois” apply to the agreement. See Mot. at 

3; see also Mot. Ex. A ¶ 6. Main Street submits billing records and biographies of its attorneys to 

justify the fees and costs it seeks. See Mot. Exs. A, B, C.

Under Illinois law, “[p]rovisions in contracts for awards of attorney fees are an exception 

to the general rule that the unsuccessful litigant in a civil action is not responsible for the payment 

of the opponent’s fees.” Kaiser v. MEPC Am. Properties, Inc., 518 N.E.2d 424, 427 (Ill. App. Ct. 

1987). “In all cases, however, only those fees which are reasonable will be allowed, the 

determination of which is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. (internal citations 

omitted). Because the trial judge is familiar with the litigation and “the successful litigant’s 

attorney is still entitled to payment from his own client . . . the trial court has broad discretionary 

powers in awarding the attorney fees sought and its decision will not be reversed unless the court 

has abused its discretion.” Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon v. Gaylord, 740 N.E.2d 501, 506 

(Ill. App. Ct. 2000). After reviewing detailed billing records, “the trial court should consider a 

variety of additional factors such as the skill and standing of the attorneys, the nature of the case, 

the novelty and/or difficulty of the issues and work involved, the importance of the matter, the 

degree of responsibility required, the usual and customary charges for comparable services, the 

benefit to the client, and whether there is a reasonable connection between the fees and the amount 

involved in the litigation.” Kaiser, 518 N.E.2d at 428.

The Court exercises its broad discretionary power to deny Main Street’s request for 

attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court is acutely aware that this is not the usual case and that 

counsel has likely had difficulty analyzing and responding to Draper’s accusatory and rambling 

filings. However, given Draper’s status as a pro se litigant, the relatively simple basis on which 

the Court dismissed his complaint, and a desire to avoid costly and almost certainly fruitless 

continued litigation to enforce any fee award, the Court DENIES the fee request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/22/2019

Case 4:18-cv-02524-HSG Document 96 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 2