THEE AGUILA, INC. VS SANTIAGO ACUNA

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC059422    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: SEG

THEE AGUILA, INC. v. ERDM, INC. ET AL

CASE NO.: VC059422

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY ERDM, INC., ET AL, MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY THEE AGUILA, INC., MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY THEE AGUILA, INC.

EDRM Fees

ERDM request for attorney fees and the opposing papers have been read and considered by the Court. The request for fees is granted en toto.

ERDM prevailed on 3 of 5 lawsuits and did not prevail in the other 2. Based on this Court’s deep familiarity with these lawsuits there is no realistic way to apportion fees among the 5 lawsuits. Discovery, pretrial motions, motions in limine, witnesses and evidence were inextricably interconnected.

ERDM Costs

The Thee Aguila motion to tax costs is ruled on as follows: with the exception of filing fees, there is no realistic way to apportion costs as noted above. Filing fees are stricken as to two cases.

Thee Aguila Fees

This analysis applies to both fee motions.

Thee Aguila fees are granted en toto. These were complicated and inextricably linked matters. The Court adopts its statement of not apportioning fees as stated under ERDM fees award. Counsel argues there are no records to support the fee request. The Court notes that ERDM spent $1,140.74 in fees before the lode star was applied. The fee request is eminently reasonable in that it is $300,000.00 less than ERDM’s.

Ms. Malley performed at a very high level throughout all of the proceedings. She obtained an excellent result considering the difficult issues. The Court paraphases Ribbens cited by ERDM. This Court is “exhaustively familiar with the scope, history and complexity of this litigation, as well as the time necessarily …involved …the Court has closely observed the performance of (counsel-my word) during the long pendency of this action and is fully aware of the degree of success.” Ribbens International S.A. de C.V. 47 Fed Supp 2d at 1128.

This Court also notes that ERDM, in its own motion argued for fees and lodestar in pursuit of litigation “including hours reasonably spent on legal theories or arguments that ultimately prove unsuccessful.” Citations omitted ERDM motion page 7.

The Court finds the motion timely. Parenthetically the Court reviewed the billing records for ERDM and notes that some billing was assigned to specific cases and in other instances billing was generic. Yet, there was just a request for an order for all fees incurred. Yet, ERDM did not make any effort to allocate these fees. In two of 5 cases ERDM is not entitled to fees, but for the reasons stated above each side is granted fees as requested.