BMO Bank N.A. v. Singh ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BMO HARRIS BANK, N.A., ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0740 JLT HBK ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART, GRANTING 13 v. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT ) JUDGMENT IN PART, AND DIRECTING THE 14 MAJOR SINGH, ) CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE ) 15 Defendant. ) (Docs. 10, 15) ) 16 ) 17 BMO Harris Bank N.A. seeks to hold Major Singh liable for breach of contract. (See 18 generally Doc. 1.) After Defendant failed to answer, the Court entered default against Defendant. 19 (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff now seeks default judgment against Defendant. (Doc. 10.) 20 The magistrate judge found the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the claims presented 21 and personal jurisdiction over Defendant. (Doc. 15 at 4-5.) The magistrate judge also determined 22 Plaintiff complied with the service requirements under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure. (Id. at 5-6.) Examining the sufficiency of the complaint, the magistrate judge found 24 Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of contract against Defendant and 25 “submits evidence in support of its damages.” (Id. at 7.) The magistrate judge determined the 26 factors identified by the Ninth Circuit in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) 27 weighed in favor of default judgment and recommended the motion be granted, with damages 28 1 awarded in the amount of $92,936.22.1 (Id. at 6-9.) 2 The magistrate judge found Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs. 3 (Doc. 15 at 10.) The magistrate judge found the requested hourly rate of $325 was reasonable 4 based upon the experience of counsel. (Id.) In addition, the magistrate judge observed: 5 “According to the declaration of Attorney Ito and the corresponding invoice, Attorney Ito 6 expended 8.40 hours of work in relation to this matter until August 16, 2024.” (Id. at 11.) The 7 magistrate judge noted Mr. Ito anticipated that it would “take at least 3 hours at a rate of $325” to 8 complete the motion for default judgment, excluding any appearance at a hearing on the motion. 9 (Id.) Because the Court vacated the hearing, the magistrate judge found it was not necessary to 10 deduct the 3 hours that were anticipated from the fee award. (Id.) The magistrate judge found 11 “the amount of $3,152.00 for 12.4 hours of work by Attorney Ito at a rate of $325.00 per hour to 12 be reasonable.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the requested fees in the 13 amount of $3,152.00 be awarded. (Id.) In addition, the magistrate judge found costs in the 14 amount of $504.68—which included $405.00 for the court filing fee and $99.68 for service of 15 process—were reasonable and recommended they be awarded. (Id.) 16 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified the parties 17 that any objections were due within 14 days after service. (Doc. 15 at 12.) The Court advised 18 Plaintiff that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 19 rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) 20 Plaintiff did not file objections, and the deadline for doing so has passed. 21 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 22 Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes findings related to the Court’s 23 jurisdiction, Plaintiff’s service of the complaint, and the Eitel factors are supported by the record 24 and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the recommendation that Plaintiff be awarded 25 monetary damages in the amount of $92,936.22. However, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees 26 27 1 It appears there was a scrivener’s error in the conclusion of the Findings and Recommendations regarding the damages to be awarded. However, the analysis correctly indicates the damages total is $92,936.22. 28 (See Doc. 15 at 9.) 1 in the amount of $3,152.50 is not supported by the record. 2 A fee applicant must provide time records documenting the tasks completed and the 3 amount of time spent on the action. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 424(1983); Welch v. 4 Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s records indicate that 5 counsel expended 6.4 hours on this action through August 16, 2024. (Doc. 12 at 5-8.) For this 6 time, the submitted records indicate the fees total $2,080.00. (Id. at 8.) The 8.4 total on the chart 7 referenced by the magistrate judge relates to firm units—not simply billed hours—and includes 8 1.0 unit at the rate of $405.00 (for the filing fee) and 1.0 unit at the rate of $99.68 (for service), as 9 well as the 6.4 units at the rate of $325 (for hours worked). (Id. at 5, 8.) The billing records 10 indicate the total for the 8.4 units is $2,584.68. (Id. at 8.) Although Mr. Ito anticipated 3 11 additional hours related to the pending motion (Doc. 12 at 3, ¶ 7), there is no evidence to support 12 this estimate. The Court declines to speculate as to time related to this motion simply because 13 Plaintiff elected to not submit billing records through the motion’s filing date of September 26, 14 2024. Instead, the fee award is limited to the established 6.4 hours, which was reasonable for the 15 tasks completed. (See Doc. 12 at 5-8.) Applying the requested hourly rate of $325, which the 16 Court agrees is reasonable here, Plaintiff is entitled to the modified fee award of $2,080. 17 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued October 31, 2024 (Doc. 15) are 19 ADOPTED in part. 20 2. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 10) is GRANTED in part. 21 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED monetary damages in the amount of $92,936.22. 22 4. Plaintiff is AWARDED interest at the contracted daily rate of $39.36 for each day 23 after September 12, 2024. 24 5. Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs is GRANTED, in the modified amount of 25 $2,080.00 in attorney fees and $504.68 in costs, for a total of $2,584.68. 26 6. Upon recovery and sale of the identified vehicle in a commercially reasonable 27 manner, Plaintiff SHALL credit the net sale proceeds of the vehicle toward the 28 monetary judgment awarded herein. 1 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff BMO Harris 2 Bank, N.A. and against Defendant Major Singh, and to close this case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _ November 20, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28