IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PACIFIC COAST FRUIT COMPANY,

an Oregon Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON SQUIRES dba FOUR SEASONS

FARMERS MARKET,

Defendant.

3:16-cv-00463-BR

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

BRENT G. SUMMERS 

Tarlow Naito & Summers, LLP

2501 S.W. First Ave, 

Suite 390

Portland, OR 97239

(503) 968-9000

Attorneys for Plaintiff

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion

(#12) for An Award of Attorney Fees and Bill of Costs (#15). For

the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS as modified Plaintiff’s

Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees and Bill of Costs and AWARDS

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 10
Plaintiff attorneys’ fees of $1,406.00, paralegal fees of

$1,125.30, and costs of $465.00.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is in the business of buying and selling

perishable agricultural commodities (produce) and is a licensed

dealer subject to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act

(PACA), 7 U.S.C. § 499e.

Defendant signed an Account Agreement with Plaintiff for the

purchase of produce on credit, and between November 2014 and May

2015 Plaintiff sold and delivered produce to Defendant at a cost

of $32,758.91. Defendant failed to pay for the goods that

Plaintiff sold to Defendant. Pursuant to PACA Plaintiff also

became the beneficiary in a statutory trust to ensure that 

suppliers would be paid when Defendant received produce from

Plaintiff. 

On March 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court

seeking to collect money from Defendant for goods Plaintiff sold

to Defendant. Plaintiff personally served Defendant with Summons

and Complaint, but Defendant failed to answer or otherwise to

appear within the time required. On May 18, 2016, the Court

granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Default and issued an Order of

Default against Defendant. On May 25, 2016, the Court entered 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 10
Default Judgment in the amount of $32,758.91 against Defendant in

favor of Plaintiff. 

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Account Agreement between the parties provides for

attorneys’ fees as follows:

I/we further understand and agree that all accounts or

monies due shall be paid in accordance with the credit

terms stated and agree to pay all reasonable costs of

collection including any court costs and/or attorney

fees incurred. 

In addition, this action was brought pursuant to PACA, and 

contractual rights to interest and attorneys’ fees are within the

scope of a claim pursuant to PACA. Middle Mountain Land and

Produce, Inc. v. Sound Commodities, Inc., 307 F.3d 1220, 1222-25

(9th Cir. 2002).

Accordingly, on this record the Court concludes Plaintiff is

entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in this matter.

II. Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' and paralegal fees in

the amount of $2,531.30.

A. Standards

The Supreme Court has stated under federal fee-shifting

statutes that "the lodestar approach" is "the guiding light" when

determining a reasonable fee. Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542,

551 (2010). Under the lodestar method the court first determines

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 10
the appropriate hourly rate for the work performed and then

multiplies that amount by the number of hours properly expended

in doing the work. Id. Although "in extraordinary

circumstances" the amount produced by the lodestar calculation

may be increased, "there is a strong presumption that the

lodestar is sufficient." Id. at 556. The party seeking an award

of fees bears "the burden of documenting the appropriate hours

expended in the litigation, and [is] required to submit evidence

in support of those hours worked." United Steelworkers of Am. v.

Ret. Income Plan For Hourly-rated Emps. Of Asarco, Inc., 512 F.3d

555, 565 (9th Cir. 2008)(quotations omitted). When "determining

the appropriate number of hours to be included in a lodestar

calculation, the district court should exclude hours 'that are

excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.'" McCown v. City

of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting Hensley

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)).

To determine the lodestar amount the court may consider

the following factors: 

(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty

and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the

skill 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) any 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; (10) the undesirability of the case;

(11) the nature and length of the professional

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 4 of 10
relationship with the client; and (12) awards in

similar cases.

Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of U.S., 307 F.3d 997,

1007 n.7 (9th Cir. 2002)(quotation omitted). A rote recitation

of the relevant factors is unnecessary as long as the court

adequately explains the basis for the award of attorneys' fees. 

McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cal., 51 F.3d 805, 809 (9th

Cir. 1995).

The lodestar amount is presumed to be the reasonable

fee, and, therefore, "'a multiplier may be used to adjust the

lodestar amount upward or downward only in rare and exceptional

cases, supported by both specific evidence on the record and

detailed findings by the lower courts.'" Summers v. Carvist

Corp., 323 F. App'x 581, 582 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting Van Gerwen

v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000)). 

"Adjustments [to the lodestar amount] must be carefully tailored

. . . and [made] only to the extent a factor has not been

subsumed within the lodestar calculation." Rouse v. Law Offices

of Rory Clark, 603 F.3d 699, 704 (9th Cir. 2009)(citing Camacho

v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 982 (9th Cir. 2008)).

B. Time expended in connection with Plaintiff’s action.

Plaintiff seeks to recover attorneys’ fees for time

attorney Brent G. Summers and paralegal Teresa Chrisinger spent

in the handling of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. The

hourly billing records for their services were submitted with the

5 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 5 of 10
Declaration of Brent G. Summers (#14). Those records reflect a

total of 13.1 hours (3.80 hours by attorney Summers and 9.30

hours by paralegal Chrisinger) expended in investigating the

facts of the case, drafting the Complaint and service documents,

corresponding with the client, and preparing the Motion for

Default Judgment. 

Even though Defendant has not appeared in this action

and, therefore, has not objected to Plaintiff’s requests, the

Court has an independent duty to review a motion for attorneys’

fees for reasonableness. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392,

1398 (9th Cir. 1992). See also Cruz v. Alhambra Sch. Dist., 282

F. App'x 578, 580 (9th Cir. 2008)(The district court has an

"obligation to articulate . . . the reasons for its findings

regarding the propriety of the hours claimed or for any

adjustments it makes either to the prevailing party's claimed

hours or to the lodestar.").

On this record the Court concludes the time expended by

attorney Summers and paralegal Chrisinger on this matter was

reasonable.

C. Requested hourly rate for attorney Summers.

Counsel requests an hourly rate of $370.00 for his 

time.

 To determine the reasonable hourly rate of an attorney,

this Court uses the most recent Oregon State Bar Economic Survey

6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 6 of 10
published in 2013 as its initial benchmark. Attorneys may argue

for higher rates based on inflation, specialty, or any number of

other factors. Attorney Summers states in his Supplemental

Declaration that he has over 33 years of experience as a

commercial lawyer handling collections, foreclosures, and other

loan engagements including agricultural liens and PACA claims and

regularly represents clients in state and federal court. The

Oregon State Bar Economic Survey rates for an attorney with

comparable years of practice is between $282 and $450 per hour. 

The rate sought by Plaintiff’s counsel is $370 per hour, which is

within the compensation range of the Economic Survey.

On this record the Court concludes the hourly rate of

$370 for attorney hours is reasonable. At that rate, the Court

awards attorneys’ fees of $1,406.00.

D. Requested hourly rate for paralegal Chrisinger.

Counsel requests an hourly rate of $175.00 for the time

spent by paralegal Chrisinger on this matter. 

The Court relies on the National Utilization and

Compensation Survey Report published by The Association of Legal

Assistants•Paralegals (NALA) in 2015 to determine the reasonable 

hourly billable rate for paralegals. Attorney Summers states in

his Supplemental Declaration that paralegal Chrisinger has a

Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science, has been employed

by the firm for over 13 years, and assists the firm with numerous

7 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 7 of 10
cases in preparing pleadings, preparing motions, trial

preparation, and assisting at trial. The NALA survey indicates

for paralegals in the Far West Region (which includes Oregon) the

average hourly billing rate in 2014 was $133. Specifically, for

paralegals with comparable years of experience (11-15 years) the

average hourly billing rate was $121.

This matter involved a relatively uncomplicated civillitigation issue rather than a complicated issue of business or

corporate litigation as illustrated by the fact that paralegal

Chrisinger expended more than two-thirds of the time required to

work on this case. 

On this record the Court concludes an hourly rate of

$121 per hour for paralegal time is reasonable. At that rate,

the Court awards paralegal fees in the amount of $1,125.30.

PLAINTIFF'S COSTS

Plaintiff requests an award of costs in the amount of

$465.00 comprised of the fee to file this action and service 

fees.

Absent a showing of circumstances not relevant here, an

award of costs is governed by federal law. See Champion Produce,

Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir.

2003).

28 U.S.C. § 1920 allows a federal court to tax specific

8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 8 of 10
items as costs against a losing party pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Section 1920 provides:

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States

may tax as costs the following:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; 

(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part

of the stenographic transcript necessarily

obtained for use in the case; 

(3)Fees and disbursements for printing and

witnesses; 

(4)Fees for exemplification and copies of papers

necessarily obtained for use in the case; 

(5)Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; 

(6)Compensation for court-appointed experts,

compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees,

expenses, and costs of special interpretation

services under § 1828 of this title.

A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and,

upon allowance, included in the judgment or

decree.

Costs generally are awarded to the prevailing party in a

civil action as a matter of course unless the court directs

otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). The court must limit an award

of costs to those defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 unless otherwise

provided for by statute. Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Ca., Inc.,

606 F.3d 577, 579-80 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Here the costs incurred for filing and service fees are

specifically allowed under § 1920. Accordingly, the Court awards

costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $465.00.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS as modified Plaintiff’s

9 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 9 of 10
Motion (#12) for an Award of Attorney Fees and Bills of Costs

(#15) against Defendant and AWARDS attorneys’ fees of $1,406.00,

paralegal fees of $1,125.30, and costs of $465.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 19th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

10 - OPINION AND ORDER

Case 3:16-cv-00463-BR Document 19 Filed 08/19/16 Page 10 of 10