Opinion
2:20-cv-00732-JAD-EJY
02-28-2022
PharMerica Mountain, LLC d/b/a PharMerica, Plaintiff v. RCSRP Corporation d/b/a Desert Hills PostAcute & Rehabilitation Center, and MMMT Corporation, Defendants
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES [ECF NO. 23]
JENNIFER A. DORSEY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Last year, I granted plaintiff PharMerica Mountain, LLC default judgment on its breach-of-contract and breach-of-implied-contract claims against defendants RCSRP Corporation and MMMT Corporation, respectively. In that default-judgment order, I “conclude[d] that PharMerica is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees under its express contract with RCSRP but not under its implied contract with MMMT.” Because PharMerica “intend[ed] to separately file a motion for legal fees and costs” under this district's Local Rule 54-14, I did not award it those fees at that time. PharMerica now seeks attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of $32,561.60 from both defendants. I find its requested fees reasonable under the factors laid out by the Nevada Supreme Court in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, so I grant its motion in part, awarding fees the itemized costs ordinarily allowed under this court's local rules against RCSRP only.
ECF No. 21.
Id. at 9; see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.010(1) (“The compensation of an attorney and counselor for his or her services is governed by agreement, express or implied, which is not restrained by law.”).
ECF No. 21 at 9 (citing ECF No. 18 at 9; ECF No. 18-4; ECF No. 18-6).
ECF No. 23 at 2. This total amount is the sum of $31,519 (attorneys' fees) and $1,042.60 (costs). Id.
Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (Nev. 1969) (listing factors relevant to the reasonableness of attorneys' fees).
Discussion
Federal courts sitting in diversity determine the reasonableness of attorneys' fees awarded under state law. Under Nevada law, “the method upon which a reasonable fee is determined is subject to the discretion of the court, which is tempered only by reason and fairness.” One permissible method is the lodestar approach, which involves “multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the case by a reasonable hourly rate.”
Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1478 (9th Cir. 1995).
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 124 P.3d 530, 548-49 (Nev. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Id. at 549 & n.98 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nevada courts must also review the requested amount “in light of the factors set forth in” the Supreme Court of Nevada's decision in Brunzell. They include:
Haley v. Dist. Ct., 273 P.3d 855, 860 (Nev. 2012) (citing Brunzell, 455 P.2d at 33).
(1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, his training, education, experience, professional standing, and skill;
(2) the character of the work to be done: its difficulty, its intricacy, its importance, time, and skill required, the responsibility imposed and the prominence and character of the parties where they affect the importance of the litigation;
(3) the work actually performed by the lawyer: the skill, time and attention given to the work;
(4) the result: whether the attorney was successful and what benefits were derived.
Brunzell, 455 P.2d at 34.
Finally, Local Rule 54-14 requires any application for attorneys' fees to include, as relevant here, an attorney affidavit, “[a] reasonable itemization and description of the work performed[, ]” and “[a] brief summary” of 13 categories of information designed to elicit more information about the case and the work that the attorneys performed.
L.R. 54-14 (a)-(b).
Here, PharMerica requests the $31,519 in attorneys' fees incurred in collecting payment on its contract with RCSRP, including all work completed related to this litigation. PharMerica includes affidavits and billing records showing that eight attorneys-including a local bankruptcy-law specialist-and a paralegal worked on this matter at rates between $145 and $575 per hour. PharMerica arrives at the lodestar amount by multiplying those rates by the 118.4 hours worked.
ECF No. 23 at 12.
ECF No. 23-4.
Id.
I have reviewed PharMerica's motion, declarations, and billing records in light of both the Brunzell factors and Local Rule 54-14. I find the rates charged and amount of work performed to be reasonable based on the local legal market and circumstances of this case. I also find that the request for fees is properly supported by evidence. So I grant the motion in part and award PharMerica the $31,519 in attorneys' fees it incurred while litigating this matter. But I deny the motion in part because PharMerica may only seek satisfaction of these fees from one of the two defendants, RCSRP. As to its request for costs, PharMerica's motion seeks $1,042.60, but those costs include numerous line items not ordinarily allowed under this district's local rules, so I award PharMerica $710.47 in costs only. I disallow costs related to computer research and pro hac vice admission.
ECF No. 23 at 12.
See L.R. 54-11(f)-(g) (computer-research fees and pro hac vice admission fees not ordinarily allowed).
Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that PharMerica Mountain, LLC's motion for attorneys' fees [ECF No. 23] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I award PharMerica $32,229.47 in attorneys' fees and costs against defendant RCSRP Corporation only. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ENTER AN AMENDED JUDGMENT accordingly.