Hansen v. Nieves

Full title: CHRISTOPHER H. HANSEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOSHUA NIEVES, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Nov 30, 2010

2:08-CV-479 JCM (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 30, 2010)

Opinion

2:08-CV-479 JCM (RJJ).

November 30, 2010

ORDER

JAMES MAHAN, District Judge

Presently before the court is defendants The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al's motion for reconsideration of order (doc. #88) denying attorney fees. (Doc. #91). Plaintiffs Christopher H. Hansen, et al failed to file an opposition to the motion.

Defendants filed an unopposed motion for attorney fees (doc. #82) in the amount of $90,380.99 on August 18, 2010. The court entered an order (doc. #88) denying the motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 54-16(b)(1) and (2), which requires that the party submit a "reasonable itemization and description of the work performed," and "[a]n itemization of all costs sought to be charged as part of the fee award and not otherwise taxable pursuant to LR 54-1 through LR 54-15." In the present motion for reconsideration (doc. #91), the defendants assert that they do not seek any additional costs, and attach an itemization of the attorney fees associated with the case (doc. #91-1).

"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). In addition, error, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect on the part of the parties may warrant reconsideration. see Associates Discount Corp. v. Goldman, 524 F.2d 1051 (3rd Cir. 1975).

Upon reviewing the defendants' supporting invoices (doc. #91-1) and the allegations in the motion for attorney fees (doc. #82) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, this court is inclined to reconsider its order (doc. #88) and grant the defendants' motion for attorney fees.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al's motion for reconsideration of order (doc. #88) denying attorney fees (doc. #91) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' motion for attorney fees (doc. #82) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED in the amount of $90,380.99.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court's order (doc. #88) denying attorney fees be, and the same hereby is, VACATED.

DATED November 30, 2010.