From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schmidt v. Rundell

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 2, 2023
23-cv-01527-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2023)

Opinion

23-cv-01527-VC

08-02-2023

ERIC SCHMIDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEREK RUNDELL, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES RE: DKT. NO. 26

VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge.

The motion for fees is denied. The plaintiffs seek $125,887.50 in fees for 148 hours of work. Almost 100 of those hours-costing $84,273.75 in discounted fees-were spent on an unopposed petition to confirm an arbitration award. That alone is unreasonable. See, e.g., EXAUSA, Corporation v. Farnese Terra, Incorporated, 2023 WL 2772515, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2023); cf. Space Data Corporation v. Hosie Rice LLP, 2021 WL 9762990, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2021); International Petroleum Products and Additives Company, Inc. v. Black Gold S.A.R.L., 2020 WL 789567, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020).

Although it is tempting to deny the motion with prejudice because it is not even within the ballpark of reasonableness, the plaintiffs will be given one more opportunity. Any renewed motion for fees is due within 14 days of this order. And if the motion is unreasonable on its face, it will be denied with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Schmidt v. Rundell

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Aug 2, 2023
23-cv-01527-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2023)
Case details for

Schmidt v. Rundell

Case Details

Full title:ERIC SCHMIDT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEREK RUNDELL, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Aug 2, 2023

Citations

23-cv-01527-VC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2023)