Perrong v. Sperian Energy Corp
2:19-cv-00115-CDS-EJY
| D. Nev. | Jan 4, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Andrew Perrong and James Everett moved for an order to show cause and sought recovery of attorneys’ fees incurred in pursuing that motion; they filed a memorandum and reply (ECF Nos. 164, 170); defendants did not file a response.
- The Court applied the Ninth Circuit lodestar framework: reasonable hours × reasonable hourly rate, with upward/downward multipliers rarely applied.
- Plaintiffs sought hourly rates of $500 (McEntee), $450 (Paronich), and $275 (law clerk White); the Court found these rates reasonable and consistent with prior approval.
- Plaintiffs voluntarily wrote off $652 as duplicative/unjustified; the Court found the remaining 30.7 hours reasonable given the case history and complexity.
- The Court awarded a total of $13,235 in attorneys’ fees ($9,995 attributed to McEntee and White; $3,240 to Paronich) and ordered Defendant EGC to pay 10% of that total each month for six months, beginning February 1, 2021.
- The order warns that missed payments without court-filed evidence of inability to pay will be treated as contempt and may lead to additional sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the requested hourly rates reasonable? | Requested rates match prior Court approvals and market practice. | No response filed. | Court approved $500 (McEntee), $450 (Paronich), $275 (White). |
| Are the hours billed reasonable and non-duplicative? | Plaintiffs reduced billed time by $652 for duplicative work; remaining 30.7 hours are reasonable. | No response filed. | Court found 30.7 hours reasonable and approved fees accordingly. |
| Is a fee award appropriate and in what amount? | Sought $13,235 in total fees for the Motion and Reply. | No response filed. | Court awarded $13,235 in attorneys’ fees. |
| Payment terms and enforcement for fee award? | Proposed collection by court order. | No response filed. | Court ordered EGC to pay 10% of total each month for six months; missed payments may be contempt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prison Legal News v. Schwarzenegger, 608 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court discretion in determining fee reasonableness)
- Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) (lodestar methodology discussion)
- Van Gerwin v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2000) (multipliers to lodestar reserved for rare occasions)
- Ballen v. City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2006) (courts may reduce fees for excessive or unnecessary effort)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (hours may be excluded for overstaffing, duplication, or unnecessary work)
- Cruz v. Alhambra School Dist., 601 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (support for excluding unnecessary or duplicative time)