PLU Investments, LLC v. Intraspect Group, Inc.
2:10-cv-00626
W.D. Wash.Apr 12, 2011Background
- Plaintiff PLU Investments, LLC sued Defendants including Intrascpect Group, Inc. and Marina Andrushchak in the Western District of Washington in a contract dispute.
- The court granted summary judgment for Andrushchak on January 26, 2011.
- Rule 54(d)(2)(B)(i) required a fee-motion within 14 days from summary judgment (by February 9, 2011).
- Andrushchak filed the fee motion on February 23, 2011, two weeks late.
- Andrushchak sought an extension under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) and an award of attorney’s fees; plaintiff opposed.
- The court granted both the extension and the fee award after applying the Pioneer four-factor test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extension of time is warranted for a late fee motion | PLU argues no extension; neglect not excusable | Andrushchak contends excusable neglect under Rule 6(b) | Extension granted after balancing Pioneer factors |
| Whether the delay prejudiced PLU | Delay would prejudice ongoing proceedings | Delay was minimal and caused little prejudice | Minimal prejudice found; extension allowed |
| Whether defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees under RCW 4.84.330 | No fee entitlement under contract dispute | Prevailing party status and statutory entitlement support fees | defendant awarded fees under lodestar method |
| Whether the lodestar calculation yields a reasonable fee award | (not dispositive) challenged fee amount | $5,180.00 reasonable given hours and rate | Fees awarded in the amount of $5,180.00 |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (four-factor excusable neglect test applied to extensions)
- Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) (full four-factor Pioneer analysis required for post-deadline extensions)
- Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) (negligence/carelessness can support excusable neglect; discretionary)
- Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379 (9th Cir. 1997) (Pioneer factors must be considered separately)
- In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2007) (Pioneer framework applied to civil motions)
- Yost v. Comm. for Idaho’s High Desert, Inc., 92 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996) (discusses Pioneer test application and discretion)
- Seattle First Nat’l Bank v. Wash. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 116 Wn.2d 398 (1991) (Washington law on contracts and prevailing-party fees)
- Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. Kraft, 165 Wn.2d 481 (2009) (statutory language makes unilateral contract provisions bilateral)
- Kofmehl v. Steelman, 80 Wn. App. 279 (1996) (mandatory fee award language under RCW 4.84.330)