Sayta v. Martin

Background

The court had previously confirmed arbitration awards in favor of Benjamin Martin, Shaunak Sayta’s former lawyer, and awarded Martin attorney’s fees and costs. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the confirmation in part and entered judgment in Martin’s favor against Sayta and John Cowan for $47,372 in attorney’s fees and costs. The district court later issued a writ of execution for that amount.

Martin served subpoenas on third parties in an apparent effort to identify and levy Cowan’s assets. Martin also filed a memorandum of costs seeking $25,725.03 in costs and attorney’s fees incurred while enforcing the Ninth Circuit judgment. Cowan objected to that memorandum and moved to quash, or cancel, the subpoenas. The court treated Cowan’s timely objections as a request to tax, or reduce, the claimed costs.

Legal framework

Because the case was litigated in California, the court applied California’s Enforcement of Judgments Law. That law allows a judgment creditor to recover reasonable and necessary enforcement costs. Certain listed costs may be claimed as a matter of right through a memorandum of costs, while other costs require a noticed motion. Attorney’s fees incurred to enforce a judgment are recoverable when authorized by law and when reasonable and necessary.

The court found that Martin’s memorandum was a procedurally proper way to request the fees available as a matter of right. The judgment had not been fully satisfied when Martin filed the memorandum because funds levied from Cowan’s account had not yet been delivered to the U.S. Marshals Service or Martin.

Attorney’s fees

Martin sought $23,520 in post-judgment attorney’s fees. Most of the claimed time—38.4 hours—was spent preparing three earlier motions to enforce the judgment. The court had denied those motions without prejudice because they were premature. The court therefore found that the related fees were not reasonable and necessary to enforce the judgment and deducted those hours.

The remaining 1.8 hours concerned reviewing filings and an order setting a judgment-debtor examination. The court found that work necessary to enforce the judgment. Applying the lodestar method, which calculates a fee by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate, the court accepted the $600 hourly rate and awarded Martin $1,080.

The court denied with prejudice the remaining claimed attorney’s fees.

Other costs

Martin also sought $2,005.03 in other costs, including delivery, attachment, subpoena-service, bank-levy, court-reporter, U.S. Marshals Service, and process-server expenses. Except for the $65 U.S. Marshals Service fee, the court found that these costs were not listed as costs claimable as a matter of right. Because Martin had not sought them through a noticed motion, the court denied the request for those additional costs without prejudice. The court taxed the $65 U.S. Marshals Service fee against Cowan.

Motion to quash

Cowan sought to quash subpoenas served on Wells Fargo, Intelligent Office, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America. The court denied the motion to quash without prejudice because Cowan had not followed the court’s Standing Order for discovery disputes. That process required the parties to meet and confer as specified and, if the dispute remained, to submit a joint discovery letter brief.

Disposition

Judge Beeler taxed the $65 U.S. Marshals Service fee and $1,080 in attorney’s fees to Cowan. The court denied without prejudice Martin’s request for additional costs and denied without prejudice Cowan’s motion to quash. The order disposed of ECF Nos. 169, 170, 171, 173, and 180.