Funk v. Bank of Hawaii
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-01378
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Funk v. Bank of Hawaii, Judge Freeman granted Leir Funk’s request for $2,655 in attorney’s fees after granting remand.
Leir Funk was awarded $2,655 in attorney’s fees, and Bank of Hawaii was ordered to pay that amount. The ruling concerned fees connected with Funk’s remand motion; the opinion does not state a separate fee award against MTGLQ Investors, L.P.
What happened
Funk v. Bank of Hawaii involved Leir Funk’s challenge to the removal of her foreclosure-related case from California state court to federal court by Bank of Hawaii. She argued that the defendants had not established the required basis for federal jurisdiction.
Funk asked the court to send the case back to state court and to award fees connected with that request. The court granted the remand request and allowed Funk to submit documentation supporting her fees. Bank of Hawaii did not respond to that documentation.
The court found that Funk’s attorney’s hourly rate of $295 and nine hours of work were reasonable, and it granted the request for attorney’s fees. Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered Bank of Hawaii to pay $2,655.
The detailed version
- Funk v. Bank of Hawaii · No. 5:20-cv-01378
- Beth Freeman
- June 29, 2020
Background
Leir Funk brought the action against Bank of Hawaii (BOH) and MTGLQ Investors, L.P., alleging unlawful conduct related to the defendants’ foreclosure of her real property. BOH removed the case from California state court based on diversity jurisdiction. Funk then moved to remand the case and requested attorney’s fees from BOH for the remand motion.
The court later granted Funk’s motion for remand and her request for attorney’s fees against BOH. It allowed her to file a submission detailing the fees connected with the remand motion. BOH did not respond before the response deadline.
Attorney’s Fees
The court used the “lodestar” method, which calculates fees by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate. Funk’s attorney, Brenna Wood Fitzpatrick, requested $2,655 for nine hours of work at $295 per hour. Fitzpatrick was two years out of law school.
The court found the hourly rate reasonable because it fell within the range that Northern District of California courts had approved for associates performing similar work. It also reviewed the billed tasks and found that the nine hours spent preparing the remand motion, related submissions, and reply were reasonable. The court described the motion as thorough and clear and the reply as properly addressing the issues raised in opposition.
Ruling
The court granted Funk’s request for attorney’s fees and ordered that she recover $2,655, the amount requested in ECF 28.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.