United States District Court, D. Nevada
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
FOLEY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendants Greg Ekins and
G.I.S. Land Services' Renewed Motion for Attorney's
Fees (ECF No. 110), filed on September 18, 2017. Plaintiff
filed its Response (ECF No. 112) on October 2, 2017.
Defendants filed their second supplement (ECF No. 114) on
October 16, 2017.
filed their Motion for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 73) on
February 21, 2017. Plaintiff filed its omnibus Response (ECF
No. 88) on March 10, 2017. Defendants filed their Reply (ECF
No. 92) on March 17, 2017. On July 27, 2017, the Court
instructed the parties to file supplements to their motions
attaching any state court award of attorney's fees and
costs. See ECF No. 96. Defendants filed their
Supplement (ECF No. 97) and Plaintiff filed its Supplement
(ECF No. 98) on July 28, 2017. The Court denied
Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 73) without prejudice on
August 28, 2017 and permitted Defendants to refile their
motion for attorney's fees and costs to comply with LR
case arises from the disputed ownership of a parcel of real
property in Nye County, Nevada, known as parcel number
APN-106-06. Plaintiff alleges he was the titled legal owner
of the property and that Defendants conspired to transfer the
title of the property without consulting Plaintiff.
See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff filed his Complaint (ECF
No. 1) on December 4, 2015, and subsequently filed an
identical Complaint in the Fifth Judicial District Court, Nye
County, Nevada, alleging the following: (1) violation of
civil rights; (2) forgery of conveyance; (3) uttering a
forged instrument; (4) conversion; (5) civil conspiracy; (6)
civil racketeering; and (7) respondeat superior. Defendants
filed their special Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Nevada's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public
Participation (“SLAPP”) statute, NRS §
41.650, et seq. ECF No. 11.
2016, the Fifth Judicial District Court dismissed
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. On October 6, 2016,
Defendants filed Supplements to their Motion to Dismiss (ECF
Nos. 62) attaching the state court order dismissing
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and requested that the
Court grant dismissal. See ECF Nos. 60, 61. On
February 7, 2017, the Court granted Defendants' special
Motion to Dismiss, entered judgment, and dismissed
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice as being barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. ECF Nos. 67, 68. On September 25,
2017, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider
(ECF No. 76) its order granting Defendants' motions to
dismiss, but, nonetheless, adhered to its ruling that
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice under
the doctrine of claim preclusion. ECF No. 111. On October 13,
2017, the Court of Appeals of the State of Nevada affirmed
the Fifth Judicial District Court's order granting
special motions to dismiss. ECF No. 114.
argue that Fed.R.Civ.P. 54 authorizes the prevailing party to
recover costs and that NRS 41.670(1) authorizes the Court to
enter an award reasonable attorney's fees and costs upon
the grant of a special motion to dismiss. See Renewed
Motion for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 110), pg. 2.
Defendants further argue that the defense in this matter is
distinct and different from services provided in the related
state court proceedings. Plaintiff argues that
Defendant's fee request is excessive and that Defendants
fail to explain the fee request increase from $11, 625.00 in
their first application for fees to $13, 350.00.
action involving state law claims, district courts apply the
law of the forum state to determine whether a party is
entitled to attorneys' fees, unless it conflicts with a
valid federal statute or procedural rule. Jiangmen Kinwai
Furniture Decoration Co. Ltd v. Int'l Mkt. Centers,
Inc., 2016 WL 6637699, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 8, 2016)
(citing MRO Commc'ns, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel.
Co., 197 F.3d 1276, 1282 (9th Cir. 1999)). Under Nevada
law, attorney's fees are available only when
“authorized by rule, statute, or contract.”
Flamingo Realty, Inc. v. M idwest Dev., Inc., 879
P.2d 69, 73(Nev. 1994); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.010.
§ 41.670 states as follows:
court grants a special motion to dismiss filed pursuant to
court shall award reasonable costs and attorney's fees to
the person against whom the action was brought. . .
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.670(1)(a).
Rebel Communications, LLC v. Virgin Valley Water
Dist., No. 2:10-CV-0513-LRH-GWF, 2012 WL 5839048, (D.
Nev. Nov. 16, 2012), the Court granted the defendant's
renewed special motion to dismiss and found that the
defendants were entitled to reasonable attorney's fees
under Nevada's Anti-SLAPP statute. The Court, however,
found that in the circumstances of the case, the scope of
work for an award of attorneys' fees should be
specifically limited to work respecting the renewed special
motion to dismiss and related discovery. Id. at *1.
The Court found that the ...