From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cockrum v. C H Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 17, 2023
2:22-cv-1515 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-1515

01-17-2023

COCKRUM et al., Plaintiff, v. C H MURPHY/CLARK-ULLMAN INC. et al., Defendant.


ORDER ON ATTORNEYS' FEES

Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 19) and the Court's Order Remanding the Case (Dkt. No. 26). The Court granted the Motion, remanded this matter, and awarded attorneys' fees and costs subject to further information from Plaintiffs in support of that request. Plaintiffs have submitted declarations from counsel attesting to the time spent litigating the remand issue and the requested hourly rates. (Declarations of Justin Olson and Matthew P. Bergman (Dkt. Nos. 27, 28).) Olson's Declaration states that he spent thirteen hours on Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand and six hours on the Reply. (Olson Decl. at 2-3.) Bergman's Declaration claims he spent seven and a half hours total on the issue of remand. (Bergman Decl. at 2-3.)

In determining what attorneys' fees are reasonable in a particular case, the court arrives at the “lodestar amount,” that is, multiplying the number of hours reasonable expended by a reasonable hourly rate. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). In deciding the number of hours “reasonably expended,” the Court considers whether the time spent on the matter was “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). The request attorney “should submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed” to enable this determination. Id. at 433. “Illegible, abbreviated time records, submitted in a form not reasonably capable of evaluation, do not satisfy the burden of submitted detailed time records justifying the hours claimed. Stewart v. Gates, 987 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1993) (internal citation and quotation omitted).

Here, the declarations do not provide documentation of the hours spent litigating the issue. Each attorney simply states how long they spent working on each brief. This is insufficient. Though Olson provided a copy of Plaintiff's Bill of Attorney's Fees and Costs for a previous case, this is irrelevant to the hours spent in this case. And any prior ruling by the Court is not dispositive of the Court's outcome in this case. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees without prejudice. Plaintiffs may resubmit declarations from counsel that provide adequate documentation of the time spent on the issue of remand and as well as the reasonableness of the hourly rates for the Court to consider.

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.


Summaries of

Cockrum v. C H Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 17, 2023
2:22-cv-1515 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023)
Case details for

Cockrum v. C H Murphy/Clark-Ullman Inc.

Case Details

Full title:COCKRUM et al., Plaintiff, v. C H MURPHY/CLARK-ULLMAN INC. et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jan 17, 2023

Citations

2:22-cv-1515 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2023)