Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. $40

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 23, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
$40, 000.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, Defendant. JOHN R. GAGLIARDI, Claimant.

ORDER

VALERIE P. COOKE, Magistrate Judge.

On March 27, 2014, this court held a case management conference and considered the motion of claimant, John R. Gagliardi ("claimant"), to compel answers to interrogatories and requests for production of documents (#38). The court denied the motion to compel and also ordered that the plaintiff United States ("plaintiff") be awarded attorney's fees and costs, as the court found that the there was no meaningful meet and confer pursuant to LR 26-7(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) prior to the filing of the motion (#65). The court also noted at the hearing that claimant failed to include the disputed discovery in the motion, rendering the court unable to examine the discovery requests or the responses. Claimant now asks the court to reconsider its order (#47) denying the motion to compel and awarding the United States its attorney's fees and costs (#54). Claimant subsequently filed a supplement to the motion to reconsider and reported that counsel for the parties met and conferred, and the plaintiff agreed to provide supplemental responses to claimant's discovery requests (#63).[1] Plaintiff opposed the motion for reconsideration (#65) and claimant replied (#70).

Also before the court is the declaration of plaintiff's counsel in support of costs and attorney's fees (#48), which plaintiff supplemented (#53). Claimant filed his response and objection (#56), and this order follows.

I. Standard for Motion for Reconsideration

Although some other districts in the Ninth Circuit have adopted local rules governing reconsideration of interlocutory orders, the District of Nevada has not. Rather, this district has used the standard for a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). See, e.g. Henry v. Rizzolo, No. 8-00635, 2010 WL 3636278, at *1 (D.Nev. Sept. 10, 2010) (quoting Evans v. Inmate Calling Solutions, No. 8-0353, 2010 WL 1727841, at *1-2 (D.Nev. 2010)); see also Antonetti v. Skolnik, No. 10-153, 2013 WL 593407, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2013) (discussing the standard for a motion to reconsider in the District of Nevada).

Accordingly, in the District of Nevada, "[a] motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason why the court should revisit its prior order, and (2) facts or law of a strongly convincing nature in support of reversing the prior decision." Henry, 2010 WL 3636278, at *1 (citing Frasure v. U.S., 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D.Nev. 2003)). Moreover, "[r]econsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Id. (citing U.S. Aviation Underwriters v. Wesair, LLC, No. 8-00891, 2010 WL 1462707 (D. Nev. April 12, 2010)) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

II. Analysis

Claimant asks this court to reconsider its order denying his motion to compel and awarding fees and costs to the plaintiff for three reasons. First, claimant re-argues the same arguments made at the March 27, 2014, hearing: that the parties did meet and confer and that the failure to attach the disputed discovery and responses was an easily correctable oversight. The court already considered and rejected these arguments at the hearing, and claimant has not offered newly discovered evidence, has not argued the court committed clear error or was manifestly unjust, and there is no intervening change in controlling law. Henry, 2010 WL 3636278, at *1 (citing Frasure v. U.S., 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D.Nev. 2003). The court acknowledges that claimant disagrees with the court's order, but that alone does not warrant reconsideration.

Next, claimant re-argues the substance of the underlying motion to compel and reviews each of the disputed responses to his requests for production of documents and answers to interrogatories. Such argument was the proper subject of the motion to compel, not the current motion for reconsideration.

Claimant finally argues that following the March 2014, hearing, the parties did, in fact, meet and confer, plaintiff agreed to supplement certain discovery responses, and the parties resolved the dispute. The resolution of the discovery dispute came after the original motion to compel and after claimant filed his motion to reconsider. It is telling that as a result of the subsequent meet and confer, claimant got what he wanted: additional discovery responses, and there appear to be no further disputes. See order (#72). The fact that the parties were able to resolve their differences is not a basis for this court to reconsider its March 2014, order; rather, it highlights the importance of meaningful meet-and-confers. Had this occurred prior to the filing of the motion to compel, it is unlikely the parties would have incurred the time and costs associated with the motion to compel, the motion for reconsideration, and the dispute about the plaintiff's attorney's fees. This is not a basis for the court to reconsider its prior order.

Based upon the foregoing, claimant's motion for reconsideration (#54) is denied.

III. Plaintiff's Attorney's Fees and Costs

The court awarded plaintiff attorney's fees and costs with respect to claimant's motion to compel and directed plaintiff's counsel to file a declaration outlining a detailed itemization of work performed in responding to the motion to compel (#s 48 & 53). Plaintiff did so, and claimant objected (#56).

The Ninth Circuit affords trial courts broad discretion in determining the reasonableness of fees. Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). Courts typically follow a two-step process. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). First, the Court must calculate the lodestar amount "by taking the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and multiplying it by a reasonable hourly rate." Id. Second, the Court "may adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a multiplier' based on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation." Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000). Some of the relevant factors are: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney, (10) the undesirability of the case, [2] (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.