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

CALEB AVERY TBEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARRY FORMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00796-JSC 

ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 295, 296

By Order on September 27, 2021, (Dkt. No. 295), the Court determined that Defendant is 

entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Plaintiff’s motion for relief from a 

judgment or order, (Dkt. No. 288). 28 U.S.C. § 1927; see B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dept., 276 F.3d 

1091, 1107 (9th Cir. 2002).

Defendant requests fees in the amount of $48,465, representing 71.8 hours of work by two 

attorneys with an hourly rate of $675. (Dkt. No. 296.) Plaintiff’s opposition does not make 

specific objections to the time expended or the hourly rate; rather, it argues that the underlying 

motion for relief was not frivolous and fees are not warranted. (Dkt. No. 298.) These arguments 

are of no moment because the Court previously concluded that the underlying motion was 

recklessly frivolous in seeking to relitigate issues resolved by dismissal of Plaintiff’s two untimely 

appeals, thus warranting Section 1927 attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No. 295.)

To calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees, the lodestar method multiplies “the number of 

hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the litigation (as supported by adequate 

documentation) by a reasonable hourly rate for the region and for the experience of the lawyer.” 

In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011); Lahiri v. Universal 

Music & Video Distrib. Corp., 606 F.3d 1216, 1222–23 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming Section 1927 

Case 3:17-cv-00796-JSC Document 301 Filed 11/01/21 Page 1 of 3
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

fee award calculated with lodestar method). Defendant’s counsel Ms. Klein spent 4.2 hours 

attempting to obtain a stipulation to enlarge Defendant’s time to respond and, when a stipulation 

could not be obtained, preparing a motion. (Dkt. No. 296 ¶¶ 8–9.) She then spent 32.6 hours, and 

co-counsel Mr. Jaeger spent 35 hours, preparing Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for 

relief from a judgment or order. (Id. ¶¶ 9–10.) The Court finds the hours expended were 

reasonable in light of the procedural complexity of the motion. (See id. ¶ 11.)

The reasonable hourly rate is calculated “according to the prevailing market rates in the 

relevant community” and should be “in line with [the rates] prevailing in the community for 

similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” 

Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 557 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “[T]he relevant community is the forum in which the district court 

sits.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). At an earlier stage of 

this case, in June 2020, the Court determined that an hourly rate of $600 was reasonable for

partners Ms. Klein and Mr. Jaeger. (Dkt. No. 258 at 15–16.) The current requested rate of $675 is 

also reasonable because it is in line with the prevailing rates in this District. Moreno v. City of 

Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) (“District judges can certainly consider the fees 

awarded by other judges in the same locality in similar cases. . . . The district court’s function is to 

award fees that reflect economic conditions in the district[.]”); see Chen v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 

No. 19-cv-01082-JSC, 2020 WL 3432644, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2020) ($475 to $750 for 

attorneys); De Leon v. Ricoh USA, Inc., No. 18- cv-03725-JSC, 2020 WL 1531331, at *15–16 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020) ($675 to $800 for principals); Theodore Broomfield v. Craft Brew All., 

Inc., No. 17-cv-01027-BLF, 2020 WL 1972505, at *11–12 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2020) ($475 to $825 

for partners); Max Sound Corp. v. Google, Inc., No. 14-cv-04412-EJD, 2017 WL 4536342, at *12 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2017) ($520 to $950 for partners); Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru Inc., No. 15-cv01741-EMC, 2017 WL 914273, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2017) ($900 for senior partners). 

Therefore, the requested fees of $48,465 represent 71.8 hours reasonably expended and a 

reasonable hourly rate of $675.

* * *

Case 3:17-cv-00796-JSC Document 301 Filed 11/01/21 Page 2 of 3
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

The Court AWARDS Section 1927 attorneys’ fees to Defendant’s counsel in the amount of 

$48,465.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2021

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00796-JSC Document 301 Filed 11/01/21 Page 3 of 3