Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02242/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02242-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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 - 05cv2242

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGO G.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv2242 JM(AJB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART APPLICATION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

vs.

KARL BLOOMFIELD, et al.,

Defendants.

On August 13, 2006 the court granted Defendants’ motion to set aside default and

awarded Plaintiff her attorney’s fees. Plaintiff has submitted an Application for

Attorney’s Fees (“Application”) and Defendants Karl Bloomfield, Douglas Holbrook

and Law Offices of Holbrook & Bloomfield object to the Application. This motion,

originally calendared for December 22, 2006, has been continued at Plaintiff’s request,

and is taken under submission pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

The court awarded attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, for all costs associated

with Defendants’ motion to set aside default, under its inherent authority, see F.J.

Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir.2001)

("All federal courts are vested with inherent powers enabling them to manage their

cases and courtrooms effectively and to ensure obedience to their orders.... As a

function of this power, courts can dismiss cases in their entirety, bar witnesses, award

attorney's fees and assess fines."), and 28 U.S.C. §1927: “Any attorney or other person

Case 3:05-cv-02242-JM-AJB Document 39 Filed 02/06/07 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

- 2 - 05cv2242

admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who

so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required

by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees

reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” The court finds that Defendants

unreasonably multiplied these proceedings, and failed to act with reasonable diligence,

by failing to timely respond to the complaint. 

Defendants oppose the Application because Plaintiff’s counsel failed to support

the application with any admissible evidence, the claimed hourly rate is not supported,

and that fees should be denied because default was obtained by fraudulent means in that

the individual defendants were never properly served. These arguments are not

persuasive.

In the main, the award of fees is a two stage process. The court first determines

whether an award is appropriate and then the prevailing party seeking recovery of

attorney fees bears the burden of establishing entitlement and documenting the hours

expended and hourly rates. See, e.g., Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895-896 n. 11

(1984); Perotti v. Seiter, 935 F.2d 761, 764 (6th Cir.1991). Once a properly

documented and supported fee application is filed, the nonprevailing party has an

opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of those fees. See David G. Knibb, Federal

Court of Appeals Manual 355 (2d ed. 1990) (describing an analogous bifurcated

procedure for making a motion for Rule 11 sanctions). Ordinarily, the court would not

award fees where the prevailing party fails to substantiate and document her attorney’s

fees to allow the nonprevailing party an opportunity to challenge the reasonableness of

the fees. Here, however, Defendants filed a reply brief in which they were provided an

opportunity to challenge the evidence and supporting materials submitted by Plaintiff

in his Rebuttal brief. Therein Defendants raised specific objections to the amount of

attorney’s fees, which the court considers below.

The request for attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff in responding to Defendant’s

motion to set aside default is granted to the extent of 16 hours, not 28. The court notes

Case 3:05-cv-02242-JM-AJB Document 39 Filed 02/06/07 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

- 3 - 05cv2242

that much of Plaintiff’s opposition brief simply does not address pertinent Rule 55

issues but consists of a sympathetic portrayal of Plaintiff’s plight and and a repetition

of the basic allegations set forth in the complaint and previous filings. Plaintiff

characterizes much of the argument as bearing on Rule 404(b) issues. (Biggs Decl.

¶12). The court approves the remaining hours and costs as reasonable. The court also

finds that the hourly rate of $295 is reasonable under the circumstances. 

As to the total fee request, Defendants only make specific objection to a

statement in the application that total claimed hours “includes staff support.” (Notice

of Compliance and Application ¶1). The court rejects this argument as Plaintiff

explains that the total amount of claimed hours does not include any separate secretarial

expenses but, rather, those expenses are included in the hourly rate. (Biggs Suppl. Decl.

¶16). Finally, Defendants’ argument that service was improper, at least as to the

individual Defendants, is better raised by appropriate motion.

In sum, the court awards on behalf of Plaintiff’s attorney and against the Law

Offices of Holbrook and Bloomfield and attorneys Karl Bloomfield and Douglas

Holbrook total fees and costs of $6777 (prepare and respond to motion to set aside

default, 16 hours at $295 per hour; travel time $1,327.5, oral argument, $442.50; airline

ticket, $249; and parking, $38). The court orders this sum to be paid within 30 days of

entry of this order, and further reminds the parties that Defendants’ relief from default

was conditioned upon the payment of these attorney’s fees. (Order Conditionally

Granting Motion to Set Aside Default at p.9). Defendants are also instructed to file a

response to the complaint within 30 days of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 6, 2007

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:05-cv-02242-JM-AJB Document 39 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 3