IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CORBYN VANCE and LOGAN VANCE, 

individually and on behalf of others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CUARTO LLC, an Oregon limited liability 

company, SEPTIMO LLC, an Oregon 

limited liability company, LBB LLC, an 

Oregon limited liability company, SEXTO 

LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, 

PRIMERO LLC, an Oregon limited 

liability company, SEGUNDO LLC, an 

Oregon limited liability company, QUINTO 

LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, 

OCTAVO, an Oregon limited liability 

company, NOVENO, an Oregon limited 

liability company, collectively all doing 

business as LITTLE BIG BURGER and 

MICAH CAMDEN and KATHERINE 

POPPE, individually, 

Defendants. 

MCSHANE, Judge: 

Civ. No. 6:14-cv-00777-MC 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Defendants filed this motion for attorney fees and costs, ECF No. 36, in the amount of 

$3,915.76. This Court previously awarded defendants "attorney fees for costs reasonable 

incurred by defendants in litigating ... inclusion ofthe website domain name on collective 

1 -OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 44 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 4
action notices and opt-in forms." Order, Nov. 4, 2014, ECF No. 26. Upon review, defendants' 

motion for attorney fees and costs, ECF No. 36, is GRANTED. 

DISCUSSION 

To determine the amount of a reasonable fee, this Court proceeds in two steps. First, this 

Court applies the lodestar method to determine what constitutes a reasonable attoq1ey fee. See 

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,433 (1983). Second, this Court may "then adjust [the 

lodestar] upward or downward based on a variety of factors." Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 

F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). This 

Court addresses each step in sequence. 

I. Lodestar Computation 

"Under the lodestar method, [this Court] multiplies the number of hours the prevailing 

party reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate." Id (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted). "The number of hours to be compensated is calculated by 

considering whether, in light of the circumstances, the time could reasonably have been billed to 

a private client." Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). To 

determine the "reasonable hourly rate to use for attorneys and paralegals in computing the 

lodestar amount[,]" this Court looks to the "prevailing market rates in the relevant community." 

Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1205 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants seek the 

following: 

Name Hourly Rate Hours Claimed Total Fees 

Att'y Todd. A. Hanchett $270 .6 $162.00 

Att'y John B. Dudrey $225 6.0 $1,350.00 

2- OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 44 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 4
Att'y Edward A. Piper $225 10.41 $2,340.00 

Legal Editor Wendy $80 .5 $40.00 

Wetherbee 

See Decl. of John B. Dudrey 1-6, ECF No. 37-1. Upon review, this Court is satisfied that 

defendants' sought number of attorney hours, 1 0.4, is reasonable under the circumstances. 

Likewise, defendants' sought attorney hourly rates are consistent with the Oregon State Bar 2012 

Economic Survel in light of each attorneys' "experience, skill, and reputation." Gonzalez, 729 

F.3d at 1205-206 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

II. Lodestar Adjustment 

"After making that computation, [this Court] then assess[es] whether it is necessary to 

adjust the presumptively reasonable lodestar figure on the basis of [the Kerr] factors." Ballen v. 

City of Portland, 466 F.3d 736,746 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted).3 This Court, having 

reviewed the Kerr factors, declines to further adjust the lodestar computation. See .id. ("[O]nly in 

in rare circumstances should a court adjust the lodestar figure, as this figure is the presumptively 

accurate measure of reasonable fees." (citations omitted)). 

1

_This hourly figure includes time spent by attorney Piper in preparing this fee petition. See DiGiovanni v. Alu, Inc., 

No. CV 09-314-PK, 2010 WL 3361036, at *3 (D. Or. July 28, 2010),jindings and recommendation adopted, 2010 

WL 3386512 (D. Or. Aug. 25, 2010). 2 Oregon State Bar Association, Oregon State Bar 2012 Economic Survey 29-30 (2012), 

http://www .osbar.org/ _ docs/resources!Econsurveys/ 12EconomicSurvey. pdf. 3 In Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), the Ninth Circuit identified the "appropriate 

factors to be considered in the balancing process required in a determination of reasonable attorney's fees." The 

Kerr factors include: 

(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) 

the skills requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other 

employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) 

whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the 

circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, 

reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (l 0) the undesirability of the case, (11) the nature 

and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. 

!d. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

3 -OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 44 Filed 01/21/15 Page 3 of 4
CONCLUSION 

For-these reasons, defendants' motion for attorney fees and costs, ECF No. 36, is 

GRANTED. Defendants are awarded attorney fees and costs in the amount of$3,915.76. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

L ..., 

Michael J. McShane 

United States District Judge 

DATED this 21st day of January, 2015. 

Case 6:14-cv-00777-MC Document 44 Filed 01/21/15 Page 4 of 4