United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Cascade Homeowners Association,
Inc.'s motion for attorney fees. (ECF No. 53). The
deadline to respond was August 28, 2017, no response has been
filed, and several weeks have passed since the deadline.
Accordingly, the motion is granted.
the court examined the legality and objective reasonableness
of the attorney fees requested. Cascade moves for fees under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 and Nevada Rule of Civil
Procedure 68 because Cascade made an offer of judgment to
plaintiff The Bank of New York Mellon before Cascade
prevailed in this action. (ECF No. 53). While the federal
Rule 68 does not mention attorney fees (it explicitly
mentions only “costs”), Nevada's Rule 68
(f) Penalties for Rejection of Offer. If the
offeree rejects an offer and fails to obtain a more favorable
(1) the offeree cannot recover any costs or attorney's
fees and shall not recover interest for the period after the
service of the offer and before the judgment; and
(2) the offeree shall pay the offeror's post-offer costs,
applicable interest on the judgment from the time of the
offer to the time of entry of the judgment and
reasonable attorney's fees, if any be allowed,
actually incurred by the offeror from the time of the offer.
If the offeror's attorney is collecting a contingent fee,
the amount of any attorney's fees awarded to the party
for whom the offer is made must be deducted from that
Nev. R. Civ. P. 68 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has
held that the United States District Court in the District of
Nevada may award fees under NRCP 68, through operation of
FRCP 54(d), when NRCP 68 would allow for it in state court.
See Cheffins v. Stewart, 825 F.3d 588, 597 (9th Cir.
2016) (holding that the federal court can grant fees under
Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 68, the court held that the
federal “Rule 54 provides a federal procedural
mechanism for moving for attorney's fees that are due
under state law.”).
Bank of New York Mellon's claims arose under state law.
(See ECF No. 1). Before the court dismissed these
claims, Cascade made an offer of judgment to The Bank of New
York Mellon of $2, 500.00. (ECF No. 53-1). Because there has
been no response to the instant motion- and thus no challenge
to the reasonableness of Cascade's offer-this court will
assume that the offer was a reasonable one for the purposes
of the instant motion.
prevailed in this matter because this court dismissed all
claims against it and all other defendants. (ECF No. 51).
Therefore, under FRCP 54 and NRCP 68, this court may grant
reasonable attorney fees to Cascade.
requests $2, 740.50 for 18.90 hours spent on the defense of
this case from the time of the rejections of the offer of
judgment. (ECF No. 53 at 9-10). This amount reflects a fixed
hourly fee of $145 per hour. The court's task now is to
determine if this request is reasonable. See generally
Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 455 P.2d 31 (Nev.
1969); Beattie v. Thomas, 99 P.2d 268 (1983). The
court must consider, and has considered, the following
(1) the qualities of the advocate: his ability, his training,
education, experience, professional standing and skill; (2)
the character of the work to be done: its difficulty, its
intricacy, its importance, time and skill required, the
responsibility imposed and the prominence and character of
the parties where they affect the importance of the
litigation; (3) the work actually performed by the lawyer:
the skill, time and attention given to the work; (4) the
result: whether the attorney was successful and what benefits
Brunzell, 455 P.2d at 33. Further, when considering
fees under NRCP 68, the court considers:
 Whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good
faith;  whether the offeror's offer of judgment was
brought in good faith;  whether the offeree's decision
to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly
unreasonable or in bad faith; and  whether fees sought by
the offeror are reasonable and justified in amount.
MRO Commc'ns, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
197 F.3d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Beattie v.
Thomas, 668 P.2d 268 (Nev. 1983)).
court has considered all of the above factors and has
examined the complaint, the offer of judgment, the instant
motion and exhibits attached, and makes the following
findings: the advocate has sufficient qualities to justify a
$145 per hour billing rate; the work done justified 18.9
hours of billing; the work actually performed by the lawyer
was adequate; Cascade's attorney was successful; the
plaintiffs claim was brought in good faith; the offeror's
offer of judgment was brought in good faith (as mentioned
above, The Bank of New York Mellon has waived any argument to
the contrary, so this court applies a presumption that ...