United States District Court, S.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS,
AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
Hon.
Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge.
On
August 20, 2019, Plaintiff Scott Schutza requested the Court
enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
68(a). (ECF No. 32.) Defendants had provided Plaintiff with
an offer to allow judgment on specified terms, and Plaintiff
accepted the offer. (ECF Nos. 32-1 and 32-2.) The Court
entered judgment per the terms of Defendants' offer, (ECF
No. 32-1). (ECF No. 33.)
On
October 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed an application for writ of
execution, requesting an additional $721.00 in fees and
costs. (ECF No. 35.) Defendants objected to the bills and
costs, arguing that Defendants' offer (which Plaintiff
had accepted) provides that Plaintiff is not entitled to
recover costs or attorney fees. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants
asked the Court to disregard the memorandum of costs or delay
ruling on it until defense counsel confirmed that the
judgment had been satisfied in full. The Clerk then issued a
writ of execution. (ECF No. 37.) Out of an abundance of
caution and due to lack of clarity of what the parties were
seeking, the Court vacated the writ of execution and asked
the parties to provide more information.
Defendants
responded and now attest that judgement has been satisfied. A
check of $5, 600 has been delivered to Plaintiff's
counsel and Defendants have also satisfied all other
conditions of the judgment. (ECF No. 41.) Defendants do not
state when they sent the check. Plaintiff states that at the
time he filed the writ of execution, payment had not been
made despite Plaintiff's counsel requesting it two times,
and “was left with no choice but to seek enforcement of
the judgment.” Plaintiff requests he be awarded the
costs and fees he and his counsel incurred in receiving the
now-paid judgment. (ECF No. 42.)
It is
clear to the Court that Defendants' offer, which was
accepted by Plaintiff, does not allow Plaintiff to receive
additional attorney's fees and costs incurred up to that
point. (See ECF No. 32-1, at 2 (“Defendants
will pay $5, 600 to Plaintiff, an amount which includes all
attorney's fees and costs which Plaintiff might be
entitled to recover under any of the causes of action pleaded
in his complaint in this action.”).) However, Plaintiff
is now seeking fees incurred post-judgment. The offer
“resolve[d] all of Plaintiff's claims in this
action, ” (id.) but could not resolve any
future costs Plaintiff would incur seeking enforcement of the
judgment. Therefore, the Court rejects Defendants'
argument that Plaintiff may not receive post-judgment fees
and costs pursuant to the offer.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
In an
action involving state law claims, the Court applies the law
of the forum state to determine whether a party is entitled
to attorneys' fees, unless that law conflicts with a
valid federal statute or procedural rule. MRO
Commc'ns, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 197 F.3d
1276, 1282 (9th Cir. 1999). California's Enforcement of
Judgments Law (“ELJ”), codified as California
Code of Civil Procedure section 680.010 et seq., is
a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the enforcement of
all civil judgments in California. Bisno v. Kahn,
225 Cal.App.4th 1087 (2014). The EJL provides that a
“judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and
necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.” Cal. Civ.
Proc. Code § 685.040.
Pursuant
to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 685.040 and
1033.5(a)(10) and California Civil Code section 1717, a party
may recover attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing a
judgment when the judgment creditor was entitled to
attorneys' fees in the underlying action pursuant to
Civil Code section 1717. Carnes v. Zamani, 488 F.3d
1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007).
II.
ANALYSIS
Attorneys'
Fees.
Plaintiff's
complaint was brought under the Americans with Disabilities
Act and California's Unruh Act. Courts may award
attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff under both
Acts. See 42 U.S.C. § 12205; Cal. Civ. Code
§ 52(a). Therefore, because Plaintiff was entitled to
attorneys' fees in the underlying action, he may seek
attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing judgment.
The
judgment creditor may seek to recover attorneys' fees
incurred in enforcing a judgment by either filing a
memorandum of costs or by serving a noticed motion. Under
either section, the judgment creditor must request
post-judgment attorneys' fees before the underlying
judgment is fully satisfied. Carnes, 488 F.3d at
1060; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 685.070(b);
685.080(a). Here, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs
before Defendants filed a satisfaction of judgment.
(See ECF Nos. 35-2, 41.)
Normally,
a defendant files a motion to tax costs after the plaintiff
files a memorandum of costs. “However, there is no
statute requiring the filing of a motion to tax costs. The
filing of objections to a memorandum of costs may be deemed a
motion to tax costs where the motion was timely, and each
item in the objections corresponds to each successive line in
the other party's cost memorandum.” William
Lindsley, California Jurisprudence 3d, 16 Cal. Jur. 3d Costs
§ 96 (2019). Here, because Defendants timely filed an
objection which made clear they were objecting to the
requested $675 in attorney's fees, the Court will
construe the objection as a motion to tax costs.
Plaintiff's
counsel declares he spent 1.5 hours of post-judgment work on
this matter including preparing the abstract, performing
research, and preparing the filing. (ECF No. 35-3, ¶
12.) Counsel declares his hourly rate is $450/hour.
(Id. ΒΆ 13.) Therefore, Plaintiff requests $675
in fees. Defendants object, arguing ...