Kathleen Angel Eisenberg v. Citibank NA, 2:13-cv-01814

Eisenberg sued Citibank, Homeward, and Power in 2013 challenging foreclosure and seeking rescission, UCL relief, breach of contract, and declaratory relief; the state court had issued a temporary restraining order pre-foreclosure.
After removal and multiple amended complaints and motions, the court dismissed rescission and UCL claims with prejudice and granted summary judgment for defendants on remaining claims; judgment entered July 13, 2017.
Defendants filed an untimely Rule 54(d)(2) motion for attorneys’ fees (filed 20 days late) based on fee provisions in the Note and Deed of Trust; they sought $74,090.90 in fees and $8,195.71 in costs.
Defendants explained the late filing resulted from counsel’s calendaring error and attempted a settlement offer trading waiver of appeal for no fee request; plaintiff did not file written opposition.
The court permitted the late filing as excusable neglect, found defendants prevailing under Cal. Civ. Code §1717, held the Note’s Section 7(e) is a valid fee-shifting clause invoking acceleration, and awarded reduced fees of $55,568.18 while directing defendants to submit evidentiary support for costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should extend Rule 54(d)(2) deadline	Opposed implicitly; no written opposition filed	Counsel miscalendared; excusable neglect warrants extension	Extension granted — 20-day delay excusable under Pioneer factors
Whether Deed of Trust Sections 9 and 14 permit recovery of attorney fees via Rule 54 motion	These sections authorize lender fees	Sections permit lender to add fees to loan balance, not a prevailing-party personal-fee award	Sections 9 and 14 do not support a Rule 54 fee award; they allow fees to be added to debt
Whether Note Section 7(e) authorizes prevailing-party attorney fees	Fee award not appropriate	Section 7(e) shifts reasonable fees incurred to enforce the Note after acceleration	Section 7(e) is a valid fee-shifting provision; defendants satisfied acceleration condition and are entitled to fees under §1717
Whether requested fees and costs are reasonable	(No substantive opposition filed)	Requested $74,090.90 in fees and $8,195.71 in costs based on detailed billing	Fees reduced 25% to $55,568.18 as excessive compared to comparable cases; costs request denied without supporting documentation

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2017) (untimely fee motions are a sufficient reason to deny absent compelling showing)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (excusable neglect factors for late filings)
Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2004) (calendaring error can be excusable neglect depending on factors)
MRO Commc’ns, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 197 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 54(d)(2) procedural; independent source of authority required for fee awards)
Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (U.S. 1975) (state law on attorney fees applies when federal court exercises jurisdiction over state claims)
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (lodestar standard and market rates guide reasonableness of fees)
PLCM Grp. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) (California courts’ broad authority to fix reasonable attorney fees)
Siligo v. Castellucci, 21 Cal.App.4th 873 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (fees to enforce contract include fees defending against challenges to validity of obligation)