United States District Court, D. Nevada
PAMELA K. LEWIS, Plaintiff,
CASA DI AMORE LLC, et al., Defendants.
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
motions come before the Court: Plaintiff Pamela Lewis's
Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Interest, ECF No. 86,
and Defendants Casa Di Amore LLC and Michael Campagno's
Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 91.
Defendant Jeff Schwartz joined to the Motion to Extend Time
to File Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 95.
sued Defendants on July 17, 2015, alleging claims for unpaid
wages and a claim for retaliation. ECF No. 1. The litigation
spanned approximately three years and was especially
adversarial in nature. See generally case docket.
The matter ultimately concluded by bench trial, which
required approximately ten hours over a span of five days.
ECF Nos. 60, 64, 65, 70, 73. The Court issued its Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law on August 23, 2018, finding in
favor of Plaintiff on her unpaid wage claims and awarding her
$18, 211.47 in unpaid wages. Id. The Clerk of the
Court entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiff on August
23, 2018. ECF No. 85.
now moves for attorney fees, costs, and interest. ECF No. 86.
Plaintiff's counsel, Patricia Marr, seeks attorney fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or
Nevada Revised Statute § 608.140 for 109.4 hours at a
rate of $600 per hour. ECF No. 86. Plaintiff also seeks costs
totaling $1, 077 and prejudgment interest totaling $4,
036.77. Id. In support of the motion, Plaintiff
attaches Marr's declaration, hourly billing records, and
a log of costs. ECF Nos. 86-1, 86-2, 87-1. In Marr's
declaration, Marr details her relevant qualifications as
follows: she graduated from William S. Boy School of Law in
May 2003 and was admitted to the Nevada bar in
2004;she practices civil litigation; she is
admitted to practice in Nevada's state courts, this
Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. ECF No. 86-1.
Marr describes the work in this matter as requiring an
inherent risk, the exclusion of other work, and demanding
additional attention and time due to defending multiple Rule
11 Motions. Id.
addition to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants Casa Di Amore
and Campagno move to extend the time to file a notice of
appeal. ECF No. 91. Defendants filed the motion on October
23, 2018. ECF No. 91. According to Campagno's
declaration, Casa Di Amore and Campagno's prior counsel,
Todd Leventhal, became unresponsive beginning in July 2018.
ECF No. 91-1. Campagno attempted to contact Leventhal
regarding the status of the case via a text message to his
assistant on July 24, 2018. Id. He was informed that
the assistant was no longer working for Leventhal and that a
different individual would contact him with a status update.
Id. After not receiving any further response,
Campagno attempted to contact Leventhal on August 15, 2018
via telephone. Id. He was told by Leventhal's
new assistant that his call would be returned. Id.
Leventhal never returned the called. Id.
August 27, 2018, Leventhal's assistant forwarded a copy
of the final judgment to Campagno. Id. Campagno
attempted to contact Leventhal to discuss the final judgment
via telephone on September 15, 2018. Id. His call
was never returned. Id. He therefore emailed
Leventhal's assistant on September 26, 2018, requesting
to speak with Leventhal about the judgment. Id.
Leventhal did not return the message. Id. Campagno
called Leventhal again on October 1, 2018, leaving another
message that went unreturned. Id. Campagno then
traveled to Leventhal's office on October 4, 2018 to
discuss the judgment with Leventhal but was informed that an
appointment would be necessary. Id. Campagno made a
final attempt to contact Leventhal on October 8, 2018,
leaving yet another unreturned message. Id.
retaining new counsel, Leventhal moved to extend the time to
file a notice of appeal. See id. Defendant Schwartz
joined to the motion on October 25, 2018, relying on the
motion and Defendant Campagno's declaration but
submitting no declaration of his own despite being
represented by different counsel. ECF No. 95.
Court held oral argument on the parties' motions on
January 3, 2019.
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND INTEREST
Court first turns to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney
Fees, Costs, and Interest. Both sides agree that the Court
should apply the Lodestar method to determine the
amount of attorney fees to award in this matter.
determine the Lodestar figure, the Court multiplies
the number of hours reasonably expended on the case by the
market rate “prevailing in the community for similar
services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and
reputation.” Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815
F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987). The burden is on the fee
applicant to produce evidence that demonstrates that the
requested hours and hourly rates are reasonable. Id.
Factors the Court may consider in reducing the number of
hours reasonably expended include inadequate documentation,
overstaffing of the case, ...