Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court.
Pending before the Court are the Reports and Recommendations (“R&Rs”) of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy Koppe, (ECF Nos. 272, 273), which state that Defendant Global Accents, Inc.’s Motions for Attorney’s Fees, (ECF Nos. 254, 255), should be denied. For the reasons stated herein, the Court declines to adopt the R&Rs and will grant Defendant Global Accent Inc.’s Motions.
This case centers upon a dispute regarding lease agreements between Plaintiff WMCV Phase 3, LLC (“WMCV”) and Defendants Global Accents, Inc. (“Global”) and Couture International, Inc. On June 11 and 12, 2013, the Court conducted a bench trial which resulted in a judgment in favor of Global as to its breach of contract claim against WMCV and a finding that Global was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. (Order 16:19-22, ECF No. 209).
Subsequently, Global filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees (“First Motion”), (ECF No. 213), in which it detailed its litigation costs through the end of trial. The Court granted this Motion and awarded Global $32, 769.98 in attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 269).
On February 5, 2014, WMCV filed an untimely notice of appeal regarding the judgment against it. (ECF No. 221). On February 13, 2014, WMCV filed a Motion to Extend Time to Appeal, (ECF No. 225), to which Global responded on February 28, 2014, (ECF No. 230). On May 12, 2014, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 250). On May 14, 2014, the Court denied WMCV’s Motion to Extend Time. (ECF No. 251).
On May 27, 2014, Global filed its Second Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Second Motion”), (ECF No. 254), in which it sought to recover the fees incurred in opposing the Motion to Extend Time to Appeal. On May 28, 2014, Global filed its Third Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Third Motion”), (ECF No. 255), seeking to recover fees incurred in opposing the appeal before the Ninth Circuit. On June 13, 2014, WMCV filed Responses to these Motions. (ECF Nos. 261, 262). Though Global had until June 23, 2014, to file replies, it declined to do so.
On August 18, 2014, the instant R&Rs were entered, (ECF Nos. 272 & 273), stating that the Second and Third Motions should be denied on the grounds that Global failed to reply to WMCV’s Responses. Id. Global filed timely Objections on September 4, 2014, (ECF Nos. 280, 281), arguing that its failure to file replies did not warrant denial of the motions.
II. Legal Standards
A. Report and Recommendation
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b).
B. Attorney’s Fees
Calculation of reasonable attorney’s fees is a two-step process. First, the Court computes the “lodestar” figure, which requires the court to multiply the reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. Fischer v. SJB-P.D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Then, the Court decides whether to increase or reduce the lodestar amount based upon factors enumerated in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), which are consistent with Local Rule 54-16.
Local Rule 54-16 provides that when a party is entitled to move for attorney’s fees, the motion must include a reasonable itemization and description of the work performed, an itemization of all costs sought to be charged as part of the fee award ...