Vignola v. Gilman, 2:10-cv-02099

Plaintiffs Louis Vignola and Tamara Harless obtained a federal judgment against Charles Gilman, Jr.; Clerk entered judgment for $9,070,846.01 on May 27, 2015.
Plaintiffs moved for attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest (requesting $3,628,338.40 in fees and $1,910,096.52 in prejudgment interest) under Nevada statutes NRS 18.010 and former NRS 17.115.
Defendant had stipulated to 100% liability in 2012; remaining litigation focused on damages.
Court evaluated entitlement under Nevada law (state substantive law applies in diversity cases) and applied both the Beattie (offer-of-judgment) and Brunzell (reasonable fee) tests for NRS 17.115.
Court concluded defendant’s defenses were not frivolous (denying fees under NRS 18.010) but that defendant unreasonably rejected Plaintiffs’ offer-of-judgment and awarded fees under NRS 17.115.
Final award: $350,000 in attorney’s fees and $1,910,096.52 in prejudgment interest; request for costs was moot (clerk already taxed costs).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fees are warranted under NRS 18.010 (fees for claims brought without reasonable grounds)	Vignola argued Gilman’s conduct in litigating damages warranted fees under §18.010(2)(b).	Gilman contended defenses and litigation over damages were reasonable, not frivolous.	Denied — court found defenses and damages litigation were not frivolous or in bad faith.
Whether fees are warranted under NRS 17.115 (offer-of-judgment statute)	Plaintiffs argued their offer was reasonable and Gilman’s rejection was unreasonable, so fees should be awarded.	Gilman disputed that rejection was grossly unreasonable and contested fee amount.	Granted in part — court found rejection unreasonable and awarded fees under §17.115 but reduced the amount.
Proper test(s) and standards to apply to §17.115 fee request	Apply Beattie factors (good faith, reasonableness of offer, reasonableness of rejection, reasonableness of fees) and Brunzell factors to fix amount.	Agreed parties should be evaluated under Beattie/Brunzell.	Court applied both tests: found good faith and unreasonable rejection, then used Brunzell factors to set a reasonable fee.
Appropriate amount of attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest	Plaintiffs sought $3.63M in fees and $1.91M prejudgment interest.	Gilman disputed the fee amount as unreasonable.	Court awarded $350,000 in attorney’s fees (Brunzell-guided reduction) and $1,910,096.52 prejudgment interest (per NRS 17.130).

Carnes v. Zamani, 488 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (state law governs substantive fee entitlement in diversity cases)
Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 709 F.3d 872 (9th Cir.) (Erie principles apply to attorney’s-fee entitlement)
Rodriguez v. Primadonna Co., LLC, 216 P.3d 793 (Nev. 2009) (standard for frivolous or groundless claims under §18.010)
Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008) (court must examine actual circumstances to assess reasonableness under §18.010)
Beattie v. Thomas, 668 P.2d 268 (Nev. 1983) (four-factor test for offer-of-judgment attorney’s-fee awards)
Brunzell v. Golden Gate Nat’l Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev. 1969) (factors to determine reasonable attorney’s fees)
Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 955 P.2d 661 (Nev.) (consideration of offeror’s good-faith litigation conduct under Beattie)
Delta Air Lines v. August, 450 U.S. 346 (U.S.) (Rule 68 inapplicable to plaintiff-made offers)
Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 319 P.3d 606 (Nev. 2014) (both Beattie and Brunzell tests must be applied for §17.115 analysis)