United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is defendants Caesars Entertainment Corp., Steve Morris, Joseph Rahi, and Gerald Tuthill's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. (Doc. # 46). Plaintiffs Walid and Awatif Jamil filed a response (doc. # 47), and defendants filed a reply (doc. # 48).
This case stems from plaintiff Walid Jamil's ("Walid") default on a casino marker. In October 2012, Walid and Caesars entered into a $450, 000 casino marker. (Doc. # 1 at 3). Walid failed to repay the marker and defaulted. ( Id. ). Plaintiffs allege that Caesars improperly entered into the marker with Walid despite Caesars' knowledge, through its employees, that Walid did not have sufficient funds to repay the marker, had previously defaulted on another casino's marker, had gone through bankruptcy proceedings, and purportedly suffers from gambling addiction. ( Id. ).
Walid asserts that Caesars, again through its employees, represented to him that the marker would not be referred to the Clark County district attorney for prosecution, even though Caesars is authorized to do so by law under Nevada Revised Statute ("NRS") § 205.130. ( Id. at 4).
Caesars turned the marker over to the district attorney. ( Id. at 5). Clark County issued a warrant for Walid's arrest. ( Id. ). Customs arrested Walid on February 24, 2014, when Walid was returning into the United States from the Dominican Republic. ( Id. ). Walid spent four days in jail before being released. ( Id. ).
Walid and his wife, Awatif, initiated the instant action on August 21, 2014, asserting numerous claims and requests for damages stemming from Walid's incarceration. ( See generally doc. # 1). Plaintiffs brought claims against defendants for (1) negligence; (2) gross negligence; (3) deceptive trade practices; (4) conversion; (5) civil conspiracy; and (6) unjust enrichment. ( See generally doc. # 1). Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. (Doc. # 24).
On April 30, 2015, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed the instant motion for attorneys' fees and costs on May 14, 2015. (Doc. # 46).
II. Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), a prevailing party may seek costs and fees. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1)-(2). A party seeking fees must: (i) file the motion no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment; (ii) specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the movant to the award; (iii) state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate of it; and (iv) disclose, if the court so orders, the terms of any agreement about fees for the services for which the claim is made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(2). Local Rule 54-16(b) further requires that the motion include the following components:
1. A reasonable itemization and description of the work performed;
2. An itemization of all costs sought to be charged as part of the fee award and not otherwise taxable pursuant to LR 54-1 through 54-15;
3. A brief summary of the following:
A. The results obtained and the ...