Branch Banking And Trust Company v. Rad, 2:14-cv-01947

BB&T sued guarantors R. Philip Nourafchan and Saiid Forouzan Rad (substituted by his estate) for breach of a guaranty; summary judgment entered for BB&T for $44,517,158.59.
The guaranty contract expressly obligates guarantors to pay "reasonable attorney’s fees and costs" incurred in collecting the debt.
BB&T moved under Rule 54 and LR 54-14 for $62,412.82 in attorney’s fees and $233.50 in nontaxable costs, filed within the post-judgment deadline.
Defendants did not dispute the reasonableness of the amounts but asked the court to defer awarding fees because they might prevail on appeal and argued they litigated in good faith to minimize fees.
The court applied Nevada substantive law (governing fee entitlement and reasonableness) and federal procedure for fee motions, and assessed the request under the lodestar approach, Brunzell factors, and LR 54-14.
The court granted BB&T’s motion and entered judgment for the requested attorney’s fees and nontaxable costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to contractual attorney’s fees	Guaranty requires guarantors to pay reasonable fees and costs; BB&T entitled to recover under contract	Award should be deferred because defendants may prevail on appeal; fees punitive given good-faith defense efforts	Entitlement exists under the clear guaranty; fee award not deferred pending appeal
Procedural timeliness and form of fee request	Motion timely under Rule 54; supporting affidavit and itemization provided	Suggested withholding until appeal resolution	Motion met Rule 54 and LR 54-14 requirements; ruling may be reversed if appeal succeeds
Reasonableness of amount requested	Submitted billing records and supporting affidavit; defendants do not challenge amounts	Asked court to consider defendants’ efforts to limit fees and good-faith defenses	Court found the documented fees and costs reasonable under lodestar, Brunzell factors, and LR 54-14
Award of nontaxable costs	LR 54-14 permits inclusion of nontaxable costs in fee award	No substantive opposition to the costs sought	Court awarded requested nontaxable costs ($233.50)

Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 738 F.3d 214 (9th Cir.) (state law governs entitlement to fees in diversity cases)
Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir.) (reasonableness of fee awards governed by state law in diversity cases)
Shuette v. Beazer Homes Holdings Corp., 124 P.3d 530 (Nev. 2005) (lodestar method and discretion in determining reasonable fees)
Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat’l Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969) (factors to assess reasonableness of attorney’s fees)
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir.) (lodestar presumptively reasonable in most cases)
Flamingo Realty, Inc. v. Midwest Dev., Inc., 879 P.2d 69 (Nev. 1994) (fees available only when authorized by rule, statute, or contract)
Haley v. Dist. Ct., 273 P.3d 855 (Nev. 2012) (court may use any rational method and consider Brunzell factors when awarding fees)
Carnes v. Zamani, 488 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (federal procedure governs fee applications)
Schneider v. Elko Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (D. Nev. 1998) (use of local rules in fee motion procedures)