The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
REGIONAL LOCAL UNION NOS. 846 and No. 3:22-cv-01473-HZ
847, International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing ORDER
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO; REGIONAL
DISTRICT COUNCIL WELFARE PLAN AND
TRUST, f/k/a LOCAL 846 REBAR WELFARE
TRUST, By and Through Its Board of Trustees;
REGIONAL DISTRICT COUNCIL RETIREMENT
PLAN AND TRUST, f/k/a REBAR RETIREMENT
PLAN AND TRUST, By and Through Its Board of
Trustees; REGIONAL DISTRICT COUNCIL
TRAINING TRUST, f/k/a LOCAL 846 TRAINING
TRUST, By and Through its Board of Trustees;
REGIONAL DISTRICT COUNCIL VACATION
TRUST FUND, f/k/a LOCAL 846 VACATION
TRUST, By and Through Its Board of Trustees,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LSRI, LLC d/b/a Lone Star Rebar Installers, a
Texas Limited Liability Company,
Defendant.
Cary R. Cadonau
Brownstein Rask
1 SW Columbia Street, Suite 900
Portland, OR 97204
Michael A. Evans
Hartnett Reyes-Jones, LLC
4399 Laclede Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63108
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiffs move for $1,254.16 in attorney fees incurred in filing their Motion for
Contempt. ECF 25. Defendant has not appeared or disputed the motion. For the following
reasons, the Court grants the motion.
On June 21, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause as to why it should not be
held in contempt of court. ECF 21. On July 7, 2023, the Court held a show cause hearing. ECF
23. The Court found Defendant in contempt of court for failing to comply with this Court’s
Order of February 5, 2023, to provide certain documents to Plaintiffs to facilitate an audit. ECF
23, 24. The Court awarded Plaintiffs the attorney fees incurred in bringing their motion and
directed counsel for Plaintiffs to file an accounting of fees incurred. Id.
The district court may award attorney fees as a sanction for civil contempt. Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich Legal & Pro. Publications, Inc. v. Multistate Legal Stud., Inc., 26 F.3d 948,
953 (9th Cir. 1994). If the party bringing and prosecuting contempt proceedings prevails, that
party may recover its costs and fees incurred in so doing. Inst. of Cetacean Rsch. v. Sea Shepherd
Conservation Soc’y, 774 F.3d 935, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). In general, when reviewing a motion for
attorney fees, the district court must determine what fee is reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 433 (1983). To do so, the court should calculate “the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. See also Omnigen Rsch.,
LLC v. Wang, No. 6:16-CV-268-MC, 2019 WL 13299499, at *1 (D. Or. Feb. 27, 2019)
(applying this approach in determining reasonable attorney fees for contempt proceedings).
There is a “strong presumption” that this figure represents a reasonable fee. Jordan v.
Multnomah Cnty., 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987). “The prevailing market rate in the
community is indicative of a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. “Generally, when determining a
reasonable hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.”
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiffs state that they incurred $1,254.16 in attorney fees in filing their motion for
contempt. Pl. Mot. 2. Michael Evans, counsel for Plaintiffs, states that he and associate Daniel
Sparks “performed a total of 4.48 hours of services regarding the filing of plaintiffs’ motion for
contempt.” Id. Evans Aff. ¶ 4. Counsel’s firm bills Plaintiffs at $285 per hour. Id. ¶ 3. Counsel
provides an accounting of fees and costs reflecting a total bill of $1,254.16. Id. Ex. 1.
The Court concludes that the requested fee is reasonable. The 4.48 hours expended cover
drafting the motion and memorandum in support, reviewing the Court’s order setting the show
cause hearing, serving the show cause order on Defendant and filing proof of service, preparing
for and attending the show cause hearing, and reviewing the Court’s order granting the Motion
for Contempt and corresponding with Defendant about the case. Id. All of this work was
reasonably necessary, and the hours are not excessive.
The billing rate of $285 per hour is also reasonable. The relevant community is Oregon.
Courts in this District usually rely on the most recent Oregon State Bar Economic Survey to
determine whether a billing rate is reasonable. See Anderson v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co.,
No. 3:18-CV-00898-SB, 2018 WL 5993581, at *3 (D. Or. Oct. 24, 2018), findings and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:18-CV-00898-SB, 2018 WL 5985671 (D. Or. Nov. 12, 2018).
The most recent survey reports that the mean hourly billing rate for lawyers in private practice in
the state in 2021 was $344 per hour, and the median was $325 per hour. Oregon State Bar 2022
Economic Survey 42 (March 2023), available at https://www.osbar.org/_docs/resources/
Econsurveys/ 22EconomicSurvey.pdf. Counsel’s rate of $285 per hour is reasonable.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees [25]. Defendant is directed to
pay Plaintiffs $1,254.16 in attorney fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:___A_u_g_u_s_t_ 2_2__, _2_0_2_3_______.
______________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge