Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Singh v. Pooni

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 5, 2017

BUTA SINGH, Plaintiff,
v.
HARMINDER S. POONI, RAVINDER KAUR, and PAN-AM TRANSPORT, INC., a KANSAS CORPORATION, Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES & COSTS

          JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Having reviewed the parties' briefs, and for the reasons explained below, the Court awards Plaintiff $31, 037.50 in attorneys' fees, but denies his request for costs.[1]

         I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         This case involves a dispute between Plaintiff Buta Singh and Defendant Harminder S. Pooni over a 2005 Hummer H2 with a right-hand drive conversion. Plaintiff brought five state claims against Defendant[2] Pooni: (1) unlawful conversion; (2) theft by false pretenses; (3) breach of contract; (4) unfair business practices; and (5) claim and delivery. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 29, at 4-8. Defendant counterclaimed, suing Plaintiff for (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, and (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Countercl., ECF No. 44, at 7-10.

         A jury returned verdicts for Plaintiff on his first, second, and third claims. ECF No. 110. As for Defendant's counterclaims, the jury again returned a verdict for Plaintiff. ECF No. 111.

         Following the publication of the jury verdicts, this Court returned verdicts for Plaintiff on his fourth and fifth claims and ordered post-trial briefing on remedies. ECF No. 108. Plaintiff filed his brief, albeit weeks late. Suppl. Br., ECF No. 116. Defendant did not file a responsive brief.

         Plaintiff also moves for attorneys' fees and costs, see ECF No. 112, but Defendant opposes. ECF No. 115. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

         II. OPINION

         A. Attorneys' Fees

         1. Lodestar Method

         When evaluating requests for attorneys' fees, the court begins by calculating the lodestar amount, which involves multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). A court should exclude from this initial calculation any “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” hours expended. See id. at 434.

         But the following Kerr factors may compel a court to adjust the lodestar amount:

(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and the difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.

Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975), abrogated on other grounds by City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992). These Kerr factors, however, are often subsumed within the lodestar amount, so courts must ensure they account for any potential overlap. See ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.