first citing Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice 18 Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1990); and then citing Crockett v. Shields, 8 F. 19 App’x 604, 606 (9th Cir. 2001)
How later courts described this case
- first citing Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice 18 Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1990); and then citing Crockett v. Shields, 8 F. 19 App’x 604, 606 (9th Cir. 2001)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 WINDY COVE, INC. et al., Case No. 21-cv-1416-MMA-DEB
12 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
13 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES;
AND
14 CIRCLE K STORES, INC.,
15 Defendant. [Doc. No. 193]
16
GRANTING MOTION TO RE-TAX
17 COSTS
18
[Doc. No. 206]
19
20
21
22 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees and motion to
23 re-tax costs. See Doc. Nos. 193, 206. Plaintiffs1 oppose both motions. See Doc.
24 Nos. 207, 211. The Court found these matters suitable for determination on the papers
25
26
27 1 For the sake of convenience, the Court refers to Windy Cove, Inc., Staffing and Management Group,
Inc. d/b/a Kazmo, LLC, HB Fuel, Inc., Mohammad Bahour, and Hamid Kahour collectively as
28
1 and without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil
2 Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s
3 motion to retax costs and GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees.
4 I. BACKGROUND
5 On August 6, 2021, Plaintiffs initiated this action against Defendant, which
6 generally speaking, stems from the parties’ fuel-supplying relationship. See Doc. No. 1.
7 On January 5, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint asserting claims for
8 (1) breach of contract – breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) declaratory
9 relief; and (3) unfair business practices in violation of California Business and
10 Professions Code § 17200, et seq. Doc. No. 27 (“FAC”).
11 On September 7, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary
12 judgment in its entirety and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
13 Doc. No. 190. Because this case involves confidential and proprietary information, the
14 Court’s Summary Judgment Order was filed under seal. On September 21, 2023,
15 Defendant filed its motion for attorney’s fees. Doc. No.193. That same day, Defendant
16 submitted to the Clerk of Court a Bill of Costs. Doc. No. 194. On September 26, 2023,
17 the Court issued a redacted version of its Summary Judgment Order, see Doc. No. 198,
18 and a Clerk’s Judgment was issued that same day, see Doc. No. 199. On October 4,
19 2023, Plaintiffs objected to the Bill of Costs. Doc. No. 200.
20 The Clerk of Court taxed Defendant’s costs at $0.00 because the Bill of Costs was
21 filed before the entry of judgment. Doc. No. 203. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion
22 to re-tax costs pursuant to Civil Local Rule 54.1(h). Doc. No. 206.
23 II. MOTION TO RE-TAX COSTS
24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute,
25 these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—
26 should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). This rule “creates a
27 presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing party, but vests in the district court
28 discretion to refuse to award costs.” Ass’n of Mexican-American Educ. v. State of Cal.,
1 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). To deny costs to the prevailing party, the
2 district court must specify its reasoning. Id. This is “in essence, a requirement that the
3 court explain why a case is not ‘ordinary’ and why, in the circumstances, it would be
4 inappropriate or inequitable to award costs.” Id. at 593. The Ninth Circuit has explained
5 that some “[a]ppropriate reasons for denying costs include: (1) the substantial public
6 importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the
7 chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff’s limited financial resources, and
8 (5) the economic disparity between the parties.” Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.,
9 743 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 2014). All of these circumstances need not be present
10 for a district court to refuse to award costs. Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1087 (9th
11 Cir. 2016).
12 Here, Defendant is the prevailing party and is therefore presumptively entitled to
13 recover costs. Nevertheless, the Bill of Costs was denied in its entirety because, as noted
14 above, Defendant filed its request after being awarded summary judgment but before
15 entry of the Clerk’s Judgment. See Doc. No. 203. “Under the well-established Rule
16 54(d)(1) case law, the district court is charged with making a de novo review of the
17 clerk’s determination of the costs issue.” Asis Internet Servs. v. Optin Glob., Inc., No. C-
18 05-5124 JCS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103932, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008) (quoting
19 In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 221 F.3d 449, 461 (3d Cir. 2000) (itself citing10
20 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 54.100[3], at 54-145)).
21 A de novo review of the Clerk’s Office determination that Defendant was not
22 entitled to costs reveals that Defendant is, in fact, entitled to recover costs. Federal Rule
23 of Civil Procedure 54(a) clearly states that “judgment” includes “a decree and any order
24 from which an appeal lies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). The Court’s September 7, 2023
25 Summary Judgment Order is a final, appealable order as defined by Rule 54. In fact, at
26 the time the Clerk’s Office reviewed the Bill of Costs, an appeal had already been taken
27 from the Order. See Doc. No. 201. The Civil Local Rules “must be construed so as to be
28 consistent with [the Federal Rules] and to promote the just, efficient and economical
1 determination of every action and proceeding.” CivLR 1.1.c. To the extent the Clerk’s
2 Office applied Civil Local Rule 54.1.a in this instance to require Defendant to wait until
3 after the entry of judgment to file a Bill of Costs, see CivLR 54.1.a, such an application
4 was inconsistent with the Federal Rules. And it was neither efficient nor economical to
5 deny a Bill of Costs in this unusual circumstance where the entry of judgment was
6 delayed by nearly three weeks.
7 Before addressing Plaintiffs’ objections, the Court notes that it finds the
8 unchallenged costs taxable under the applicable law. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1) (permitting
9 fees of the clerk as taxable); id. § 1920(3) (permitting fees for witnesses as taxable); see
10 also 28 U.S.C.S. § 1821(b) (“A witness shall be paid an attendance fee of $40 per day for
11 each day’s attendance.”).
12 Turning to the briefing on Defendant’s motion, Plaintiffs do not argue that
13 Defendant is not entitled to recover costs. Rather, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant should
14 not be permitted to recover the costs associated with obtaining three deposition
15 transcripts. See Doc. No. 211. According to Plaintiffs, because Defendant did not utilize
16 these transcripts at summary judgment, they are not recoverable. Id. at 3.
17 The three challenged deposition costs are: (1) Defendant’s expert witness,
18 Jacqueline Benyamini, $802.50; (2) Defendant’s employee, Stephen Jennison, $1,192.70;
19 and (3) Defendant’s employee Marcello B. Ciminelli, $913.40. As such, Plaintiffs object
20 to the recovery of $2,908.60.
21 Title 28 of the United States Code, section 1920 provides that the Court may tax as
22 costs, among other things, “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts
23 necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2). Further, pursuant to the
24 Civil Local Rules,
25
The cost of an original and one copy of any deposition (including videotaped
26
depositions) necessarily obtained for use in the case is allowable. Depositions
27 need not be introduced in evidence or used at trial to be taxable so long as at
28
1 the time it was taken it could reasonably be expected that the deposition would
be used for trial preparation, rather than mere discovery.
2
3 CivLR 54.1.b.3.a.
4 As an initial matter, there appears to be no general rule, as Plaintiffs suggest, that
5 transcripts may not be deemed “for use in a case” where the prevailing party did not offer
6 them as evidence on summary judgment. District courts in this Circuit have both denied
7 and awarded deposition transcript costs where the evidence was not offered at summary
8 judgment or necessary to resolve the dispositive issues in the prevailing party’s favor.
9 Compare Valencia v. City of Stockton, No. 2:16-cv-2081-JAM-AC, 2018 U.S. Dist.
10 LEXIS 117415, at *9 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2018) (denying costs), with Ely v. Bd. of Trs. of
11 the Pace Indus. Union - Mgmt. Pension Fund, No. 3:18-cv-00315-CWD, 2021 U.S. Dist.
12 LEXIS 88138, at *8 (D. Idaho May 7, 2021) (allowing costs). Moreover, while
13 depositions “merely useful for discovery” are not recoverable, Indep. Iron Works, Inc. v.
14 U.S. Steel Corp., 322 F.2d 656, 678 (9th Cir. 1963), “Ninth Circuit precedent is clear that
15 a document need not be offered as evidence to have been necessarily obtained for use in
16 the case.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Ricoh Co. (In re Ricoh Co. Patent Litig.), 661 F.3d 1361,
17 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (first citing Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice
18 Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587, 588 (9th Cir. 1990); and then citing Crockett v. Shields, 8 F.
19 App’x 604, 606 (9th Cir. 2001)).
20 Plaintiffs’ citation to Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177
21 (9th Cir. 1990), to argue otherwise is unpersuasive. The Ninth Circuit in Aflex merely
22 held that Independent Iron Works is still good law, and that “obtaining copies of
23 depositions taken by the opposing party may be considered necessary in certain
24 instances.” Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990).
25 The case of Independent Iron Works does not, as Plaintiffs argue, supply “a test of
26 whether a deposition was ‘useful for discovery’ or ‘necessarily obtained for use in the
27 case’” as “whether the deposition was used at trial or in a summary judgment motion.”
28 Doc. No. 211 at 4. In fact, the suggestion that there is any test, nonetheless that such a
1 test turns on actual use, is incorrect under Ninth Circuit law. See, e.g., Haagen-Dazs, 920
2 F.2d at 588 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) (section 1920(4) enables a court to award
3 copying costs for any document “necessarily obtained for use in the case” and does not
4 specifically require that the copied document be introduced into the record to be an
5 allowable cost)).
6 Plaintiffs point out that Defendant’s explanation for the necessity of these costs is
7 merely to prepare for and potentially use at trial:
8
It was reasonably necessary for Circle K to obtain copies of deposition
9
transcripts for these expert and percipient witness depositions in order to
10 review them prior to trial for use at trial if Plaintiffs were to use those
depositions for impeachment. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate
11
for Circle K’s counsel to have copies of the deposition transcripts in order to
12 object to any impeachment testimony before it would be read to the jury,
and/or to ask the court for leave to read additional portions of the depositions
13
under the rule of completeness.
14
15 Doc. No. 206-1 at 11.
16 But under Independent Iron Works, deposition costs may be recoverable where the
17 deponents were employees of the prevailing party, and either were or might have been
18 available as witnesses at trial. 322 F.2d at 678–79. In such a circumstance, the Ninth
19 Circuit explained, “the possibility that the deposition would be used to impeach the party
20 created a reasonable necessity for his purchase of a copy in order to hold the
21 impeachment within proper limits.” Id. at 679 (citing Hancock v. Albee, 11 F.R.D. 139
22 (D.Conn.1951)). Independent Iron Works does not stand for the rule that “depositions
23 that simply are investigative or preparatory in character, rather than used for the
24 presentation of the case, are not recoverable.” Doc. No. 211 at 5. The case simply
25 provides that depositions that are “merely useful for discovery” are not taxable and
26 should be “borne by the party taking them as incidental to normal preparation for trial.”
27 Independent Iron Works, 322 F.2d at 679. Defendant has offered that these depositions,
28 which were taken by Plaintiffs, were not merely useful for discovery but were reasonably
1 necessary for trial. And Plaintiffs have not rebutted the presumption that these costs are
2 taxable; Plaintiffs fail to show that these depositions were purely investigative or
3 preparatory, or otherwise only served as a discovery tool with no anticipated usefulness at
4 trial.
5 Here, it appears to the Court that the three challenged deposition transcripts, along
6 with all of the deposition transcript costs Defendant seeks to recover,2 were necessarily
7 obtained for use in this case, and reasonably expected to be used for trial preparation
8 rather than mere discovery, and therefore are encompassed by both 28 U.S.C. § 1920(2)
9 and Civil Local Rule 54.1.b.3.a. On this record, Plaintiffs have not overcome the
10 presumption that these costs are taxable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s
11 motion to re-tax costs.
12 III. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
13 Defendant also moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the aggregate amount of
14 $1,103,799.55. Doc. No. 193-1.
15 A. Legal Standard
16 Absent a rule or statute that provides for an award of attorney fees, each party must
17 generally bear its own attorney fees. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local Union No.
18 359 v. Madison Indus., 84 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 1996). When an award of attorney
19 fees is authorized, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) sets forth the requirements
20 for obtaining such an award. The rule provides that a claim for attorney fees “must be
21 made by motion,” and that the motion must, among other things, “specify the judgment
22 and the statute, rule, or other grounds entitling the movant to the award.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23 54(d)(2)(A), (B)(ii).
24 In a diversity action such as this, courts look to state law to determine whether an
25 award of attorney fees is authorized. Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
26
27
2 Defendant has voluntarily withdrawn the request to tax the costs of two other deposition transcripts.
28
1 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000) (first citing 6 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice
2 § 54.78[1] (3d ed. 2000), and then citing Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir.
3 1997)). California law provides:
4
5 In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that
attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be
6
awarded . . . to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the
7 party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the
contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to
8
other costs.
9
10 Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a) (emphasis added).
11 An action is “on a contract” if (1) the action “involves” an agreement, in that it
12 “arises out of, is based upon, or relates to an agreement by seeking to define or interpret
13 its terms or to determine or enforce a party’s rights or duties under the agreement”; and
14 (2) the agreement contains an attorney fee provision. Eden Twp. Healthcare Dist. v.
15 Eden Med. Ctr., 162 Cal. Rptr. 3d 932, 939 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
16 The prevailing party is generally determined by the court as “the party who
17 recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(b).
18 B. Procedural History
19 On July 12, 2021, Plaintiffs initiated this action in the Superior Court, San Diego
20 County. See Doc. No. 1-2. On January 6, 2021, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal
21 based upon this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 1. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed
22 a First Amended Complaint, asserting claims for: (1) Breach of Contract – Breach of
23 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (2) Declaratory Relief; and (3) Unfair
24 Business Practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et
25 seq. Doc. No. 27 (“FAC”). Defendant filed an answer and countercomplaint/third-party
26 complaint seeking declaratory relief. See Doc. No. 28. Generally speaking, the parties’
27 claims arose from their dispute over whether Defendant’s gasoline prices were
28 permissible under their fuel-supply agreements.
1 In March 2023, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment as well as
2 Daubert motions. See Doc. Nos. 120, 125, 126, 127, 128. On September 7, 2023, the
3 Court issued the Summary Judgment Order, granting Defendant’s motion for summary
4 judgment in its entirety and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.
5 See Doc. 190. As to Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court found that Plaintiffs did not raise a
6 triable dispute to overcome the presumption that Defendant set its prices in good faith.
7 Doc. No. 190 at 27. For this reason, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendant
8 on all of Plaintiff’s claims. Id. at 27–29. The Court also found that Defendant was
9 entitled to judgment on its counterclaim for declaratory relief. Id. at 30.
10 C. Discussion
11 Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees under
12 California law. Indeed, this action plainly arose out of and was based upon the parties’
13 fuel servicing agreement, and both parties sought to determine and/or enforce their rights
14 under the agreement. Further, the agreement includes an attorney’s fees provision:
15
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
16
all attorneys’ fees, costs of suit and reasonable expenses incurred in order to
17 secure, defend or protect the rights inuring to the prevailing party under this
Contract, or to enforce the term thereof, in addition to any other relief to which
18
the prevailing party may be entitled.
19
20 Doc. No. 193-3 ¶ 38(b).
21 Plaintiffs also seemingly concede that Defendant is the prevailing party. In
22 opposition, Plaintiffs ask the Court to stay its determination of Defendant’s motion
23 pending appeal, or alternatively, to reduce the fee award.
24 1. Stay Pending Appeal
25 Plaintiffs have appealed from the Summary Judgment Order. See Doc. No. 201.
26 In support of their request for a stay of Defendant’s fees motion pending appeal,
27 Plaintiffs cite to a plethora of district court cases that have stayed the matter of attorney’s
28 fees until after resolution of an appeal. See Doc. No. 207 at 8–9 (collecting cases).
1 Plaintiffs implore the Court to conserve judicial resources and exercise its discretion to
2 stay this matter. Id. at 9. But Plaintiffs fail to acknowledge or apply the applicable legal
3 standard the Court is to employ when deciding whether to grant such a stay pending
4 appeal.
5 “If an appeal on the merits of a case is taken, courts have discretion to defer the
6 determination of fees while an appeal is pending.” Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. EMC Corp.,
7 No. 5:13-cv-01358-EJD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57441, at *4–5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2020)
8 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) advisory committee’s notes to 1993 amendment). However,
9 “the weight of authority is that the usual course is for the Court to consider attorneys’
10 fees promptly after the merits decision rather than stay a motion for attorneys’ fees until
11 resolution of the appeal.” Sports Dimension v. Coleman Co., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist.
12 LEXIS 176119, 2015 WL 10013784, at *3 n.1 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2015) (quotation marks
13 and citation omitted). Courts consider four factors to determine whether to stay awarding
14 attorneys’ fees and costs pending appeal: (1) “whether the stay applicant has made a
15 strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “whether the applicant will
16 be irreparably injured absent a stay”; (3) “whether issuance of the stay will substantially
17 injure the other parties interested in the proceeding”; and (4) “where the public interest
18 lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); see also Tracy Anderson Mind &
19 Body, LLC v. Roup, No. 2:22-cv-04735 PSG (Ex), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189055, at *18
20 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2023); M.A. Mobile, Ltd. v. Indian Inst. of Tech. Kharagpur, No. CV
21 08-02658 WHO, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209226, 2019 WL 6525752, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
22 Dec. 4, 2019).
23 Plaintiffs have made no attempt to argue that any of these factors have been met.
24 They do not claim that they will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay or that they are
25 likely to succeed upon an appeal. Without explaining how a stay is warranted or
26 appropriate under the relevant legal standard, the Court cannot grant Plaintiffs’ stay
27 request. See Tracy Anderson Mind & Body, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189055, at *19.
28 Consequently, the Court turns to the reasonableness of the fees Defendant seeks.
1 2. Reasonableness of Fees
2 “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e.,
3 the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.
4 PLCM Grp., Inc. v. Drexler, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 198, 206 (2000). A reasonable hourly rate
5 is typically based upon the prevailing market rate in the community for “similar work
6 performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Chalmers v.
7 City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465
8 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)). Further, “[t]he fee applicant bears the burden of
9 documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation and must submit evidence
10 in support of those hours worked.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir.
11 1992) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 437 (1983)). A district court
12 “should defer to the winning lawyer’s professional judgment as to how much time he was
13 required to spend on the case.” Chaudhry, 751 F.3d at 1111 (citing Moreno, 534 F.3d at
14 1112). However, the Court “should exclude from [the] initial fee calculation hours that
15 were not ‘reasonably expended.’” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Hours are not “reasonably
16 expended” if they are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id.
17 Plaintiffs do not challenge counsel’s hourly rates. Doc. No. 207 at 5. Here, the
18 hourly rates range from $138 to $468 for a variety of professionals including paralegals,
19 analysts, associates, and shareholder attorneys. Doc. No. 197-1 (“Covington Decl.”)
20 ¶¶ 27–34. Courts in this district have approved similar hourly rates. See, e.g., Martinez
21 v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 19-CV-1195-WVG, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31520, at
22 *34–35 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2023) (collecting cases). In addition to the declarations of
23 counsel, the Court relies on its own knowledge and experience of customary rates
24 concerning reasonable and proper fees, see Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th
25 Cir. 2011), and considers the relevant Kerr factors. See Davis v. City of San Francisco,
26 976 F.2d 1536, 1546 (9th Cir. 1992) (finding that district courts may consider the Kerr
27 factors in determining an appropriate market rate). Based upon the record, and the
28 Court’s experience, the Court finds that counsel’s rates are reasonable.
1 Turning to the hours, Defendant seeks to recover attorney’s fees for 3,277.9 hours
2 of work.3 In support of this request, Defendant did not publicly file counsel’s billing
3 records, but rather filed a motion to seal, among other things, “[t]he entirety of the
4 invoices.” Doc. No. 191 at 3. The Court granted Defendant’s motion, and Defendant
5 filed its motion for attorney’s fees and evidence in support thereof under seal. See Doc.
6 No. 197. However, even the billing records submitted under seal are heavily redacted.
7 Doc. No. 197-8 (“Def. Ex. G”).
8 When a party has submitted inadequate records, this Court is “neither obligated to
9 explain what type of records should be submitted, nor to request additional information.
10 The burden of presenting the appropriate fee documentation rests squarely on the
11 shoulders of the attorneys seeking the award.” In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Secs.
12 Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1306 (9th Cir. 1994). “Where the documentation of hours is
13 inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Hensley v. Eckerhart,
14 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
15 Here, the Court finds that the billing entries containing redactions are insufficient
16 to support the request to be compensated for those hours. Even assuming Defendant was
17 entitled to redact certain information from its billing records so as to protect this
18 information from public disclosure, Defendant does not provide a sufficient explanation
19 as to why the sealed version of these records should nonetheless contain redactions, i.e.,
20 why the Court cannot view the redacted information. Having parsed through the records
21 in painstaking detail, the Court finds it is unable to assess the reasonableness of this work
22 without the missing information.
23
24
25 3 Defendant proffers in its motion and summary of hours and fees, see Doc. No. 197-9, that counsel
spent 3,278.8 hours on this case during the relevant July 2021–April 2023 time period. However, this
26 appears to be a typographical and a mathematical error. First, the billing records reflect 3,278.7 hours.
Compare Def. Ex. H (noting 125.5 in March 2022) with Doc. No. 197-8 at 36 (reflecting 125.4 hours in
27 March 2022). Moreover, while a May 26, 2022 entry for 0.8 hours is included in the total, Defendant
did not include, and does not seek, fees for this work. Accordingly, the Court finds that the total hours
28
l For example, some redactions render the entries incapable of analysis:
2
WINDY GOVE, ET AL/SAN DIEGO DEALERS S/30/2021 «COVINGTON, MATTHEW = REVIEW REVISE EMECUTIVE SUMMARY ay
3 BNE: SANA ANG RE CALL Ww
a 2.40 435.00 1,020.00 a? 437.14
4
5 || Def. Ex. G at 6.
6 Other entries are for drafting of memoranda, but include no discernable substance
7 to what motions the memoranda were in support of:
8
9 WINDY OOVE, ET AL/SAN DIEGO DEALERS 17/2022 COVINGTON, MATTHEW ono awtw tities ti —
10
11 || Def. Ex. G at 19.
12 In some instances, the entire description of the entry is redacted:
13
14 WINDY COVE, ET AL/SAN DIEGO DEALERS 6/9/2022 COVINGTON, MATTHEW «es
ee
1 5 a 120 425.00 $10.00 510.00
16 || Def. Ex. G at 60.
17 Further, while some redacted entries can be partially understood despite the
18 || omitted information, the Court is unable to determine what portion of these entries are
19 || attributable to the information sufficiently provided. For example,
20
WINDY GOVE, ET AL/SAN DIEGO DEALERS 11/2/2021 COVINGTON, MATTHEW READ HELPPUL CASELAW RE LiCt 2-205 SARE HARBOR FOR
2 l USE IN SUMMARY JUDGMENT. es
ee. 1900 (425.00 807.50 12 403.75
22
23 || Id. at 7.
24 Defendant is correct that there is no per se rule against block billing. But where, as
25 the “block billing prevents the court from discerning which tasks are compensable
26 which are not, courts retain discretion to penalize block billing.” DePuy Synthes
27 || Sales, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. EDCV181557FMOKKX, 2023 WL 6786772, at *10
28 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 6932584
1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023) (citing Heritage Pacific Fin., LLC v. Monroy, 215 Cal. App. 4th
2 972, 1010–1011, 156 Cal.Rptr.3d 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)).
3 This issue goes hand-in-hand with Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant improperly
4 seeks to recover fees incurred for work involving since-dismissed parties. Omitted from
5 the procedural background section above is a detailed explanation of how the parties in
6 this case have changed significantly over time.
7 This case was initiated in state court by Windy Cove, Inc., AAA Able, Inc. d/b/a
8 University City Mobil and South Bay, S&G Zavaro, Inc. d/b/a Miramar Mobil,
9 Newkirk’s Santa Fe Service, Inc., Diamond Bar Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Diamond Bar
10 Mobil, S & Z Petroleum, Inc. d/b/a Haven Mobil, Oceanside Akam Oil, Inc., and Staffing
11 and Management Group, Inc. d/b/a Kazmo, LLC. Doc. No. 1-2 at 3–4. Thereafter,
12 Diamond Bar Petroleum, Inc. and S & Z Petroleum, Inc. voluntarily dismissed their
13 claims. Doc. No. 4. In Defendant’s initial Answer and Countercomplaint/Third Party
14 Complaint, Defendant asserted six counterclaims and named as counterclaim and third
15 party defendants: Windy Cove, Inc., AAA Able, Inc. d/b/a University City Mobil and
16 South Bay; S & G Zavaro, Inc. d/b/a Miramar Mobil, S & G Zavaro, LLC, Newkirk’s
17 Santa Fe Service, Inc., 1809 Partners LLC, Oceanside Akam Oil, Inc., Mike’s Liquor
18 Property, LLC, Staffing & Management Group, Inc., d/b/a Kazmo, LLC, and Kazmo,
19 LLC. Doc. No. 6.
20 By way of the First Amended Complaint, the following plaintiffs brought claims
21 against Defendant: Windy Cove, Inc., AAA Able, Inc. d/b/a University City Mobil and
22 South Bay; S & G Zavaro, Inc. d/b/a Miramar Mobil, Newkirk’s Santa Fe Service, Inc.,
23 Oceanside Akam Oil, Inc., Staffing & Management Group, Inc., d/b/a Kazmo, LLC, and
24 HB Fuel, Inc. See FAC. Defendant then filed an Amended Countercomplaint/Third
25 Party Complaint, asserting the same six counterclaims, against Windy Cove, Inc., AAA
26 Able, Inc. d/b/a University City Mobil and South Bay; S & G Zavaro, Inc. d/b/a Miramar
27 Mobil, S & G Zavaro, LLC, Newkirk’s Santa Fe Service, Inc., 1809 Partners LLC,
28 Oceanside Akam Oil, Inc., Mike’s Liquor Property, LLC, Staffing & Management
1 || Group, Inc., d/b/a Kazmo, LLC, Kazmo, LLC, HB Fuel, Inc., and Sun Rise Property,
2 || LLC. Doc. No. 28.
3 Since then, the following parties have been dismissed from the action by joint
4 || motion: S & G Zavaro, Inc., AAA Able, Inc., S & G Zavaro, LLC, Newkirk’s Santa Fe
5 || Service, Inc., Oceanside Akam Oil, Inc., 1809 Partners LLC, and Mike’s Liquor
6 || Property, LLC. Doc. Nos. 67, 72, 83, 84. After the Court denied the parties’ joint
7 ||motion seeking piecemeal dismissal of Defendant’s counterclaims, see Doc. Nos. 110,
8 Defendant filed a Second Amended Countercomplaint against Windy Cove, Inc.,
9 || Staffing and Management Group, Inc. d/b/a Kazmo, LLC, HB Fuel, Inc., Mohammad
10 || Bahour, and Hamid Kahour asserting only one counterclaim for declaratory relief. Doc.
11 ||No. 116. The Court therefore refers to Diamond Bar Petroleum, Inc., S & Z Petroleum,
12 ||Inc., S & G Zavaro, Inc., AAA Able, Inc., S & G Zavaro, LLC, Newkirk’s Santa Fe
13 Service, Inc., Oceanside Akam Oil, Inc. 1809 Partners LLC, Mike’s Liquor Property,
14 || LLC, Kazmo, LLC, and Sun Rise Property, LLC as the “Dismissed Plaintiffs.”
15 Defendant concedes that the dismissal orders provided that each party shall bear its
16 costs and fees, and therefore that it should not be permitted to recover from Plaintiffs
17 || fees attributable to the Dismissed Plaintiffs. Defendant contends it has voluntarily
18 || excluded work attributable to the Dismissed Plaintiffs. But the Court is unable to assess
19 || the accuracy of Defendant’s position because some of the redactions omit party and/or
20 counsel information. For example, one entry reads:
21
22 |] weerenemonenace nm common i oe wa
23
24 || Def. Ex. G at 15.
25 Due to the nature of these redactions, the Court cannot determine whether the
26 || missing party’s name is a Dismissed Plaintiff, one of the Plaintiffs, or some other, non-
27 party. The Court cannot accept at face value that because Defendant has removed certain
28 || entries attributable to the Dismissed Plaintiffs, the redacted information does not pertain
1 ||to them. This is because, as Defendant concedes, see Doc. No. 209 at 11 fn.2, several
2 || entries for work performed specifically in connection with the Dismissed Plaintiffs were,
3 || perhaps inadvertently, retained:
4
tenn CASING DIMISLS OF TWO PLANTIFFSOND
DISCUSSION ABOUT STRATEGY CALL a1 30000 «= 3000 □□□□
7 || Def. Ex. G at 3.
8 In this same vein, some of the redactions prevent the Court from understanding on
9 || what claims the work was done. In light of the fact that Defendant ultimately amended
10 || its Countercomplaint thereby voluntarily dismissing five of its counterclaims, the Court is
11 || unable to discern whether this time is recoverable.
12 Moreover, some of the discovery-related entries contain redactions of information
13 necessary to the Court’s reasonableness analysis:
14
15 || morcowseravssnoico cours jigs FRAOENEURGH, PALL REEARCHAND □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ □□
16
17 || Def. Ex. G at 9.
18 All of the redacted entries include these same deficiencies, or are otherwise
19 || deficient for similar reasons. Courts have reduced or denied fee awards where counsel’s
20 || redacted billing records are incapable of analysis or otherwise insufficient to demonstrate
21 ||the reasonableness of the work performed. See, e.g., RO Constr., Inc. v. Ecolite Concrete
22 || U.S.A., Inc., No. 09¢v2728-CAB (WVG), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173976, at *9 (S.D.
23 Dec. 7, 2012); Kobos v. Schwan’s Home Serv., No. CV-F-09-856 LJO SKO, 2010
24 Dist. LEXIS 110397, at *15 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010). Accordingly, because the
25 || Court finds that Defendant’s redactions prevent the Court from determining the
26 ||reasonableness of the work or the appropriateness of Defendant’s request to recover fees
27 || for that work from Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to these fees.
28 || Namely, the Court finds that 817.2 hours are not supported on this record, as set forth
1 more fully in the chart appended to the end of this Order. Consequently, the Court
2 initially reduces the total award Defendant requests by $277,596.04 for failure to support
3 these fees with sufficient records.4
4 Next, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant improperly seeks to recover fees for work
5 associated with the Dismissed Plaintiffs. See Doc. No. 207 at 10. As noted above,
6 Defendant concedes that the award should be reduced on this basis, see Doc. No. 209 at
7 11 fn.2, and the Court agrees. The entries Plaintiffs identify reflect time spent in relation
8 to the Dismissed Plaintiffs, and Defendant agreed to bear its own costs and fees related to
9 these parties. Accordingly, the Court further reduces the award Defendant seeks by
10 $3,716.40.5
11 To that end, Plaintiffs also ask the Court to further apportion the fees Defendant
12 seeks based upon the significant changes to Defendant’s counterclaims and the parties to
13 this action. See Doc. No. 207 at 8–14. Defendant responds that it has already
14 apportioned certain entries, and an across-the-board allocation is not appropriate because
15 the time assigned to Plaintiffs here is not disproportionate. See Doc. No. 209 at 8–9.
16 As discussed above, the number and identity of the parties have changed
17 drastically throughout the life of this case. Indeed, it appears that both the Court and the
18 parties have been confused at times as to who remained a party to this action. For the
19 sake of clarity, the chart on the following page represents the Court’s understanding of
20 the changes to the parties based upon the docket and filings.
21
22
23
24
4 Plaintiffs suggest that 19 entries are improperly redacted and seek a reduction on this basis of only
25 $14,950.77. See Doc. No. 207 at 17. Regardless of Plaintiffs’ challenges, it is ultimately the Court’s
duty to assess the reasonableness of the work performed. Even assuming the parties can decipher the
26 entries that Plaintiffs do not challenge, the Court cannot. Therefore, on this record, Defendant cannot
recover these fees.
27 5 Excluding the April 29, 2022 entry Plaintiffs identify, which the Court finds cannot be recovered due
to redactions, the Court nonetheless agrees that the total fees improperly sought for this reason is
28
1 Date Event Party Configuration
2 08/06/2021 Notice of Removal of Complaint 8 plaintiffs v. 1 defendant
3 08/12/2021 Dismissal by 2 plaintiffs 6 plaintiffs v. 1 defendant
4 8/17/2021 Countercomplaint/TP Complaint 1 CC plaintiff v. 10 CC/TP defendants
5 01/05/2022 First Amended Complaint 7 plaintiffs v. 1 defendant
6 01/31/2022 Amended Countercomplaint 1 CC plaintiff v. 14 CC/TP defendants
7 09/08/2022 Dismissal of 3 parties 5 plaintiffs v. 1 defendant
8 1 CC plaintiff v. 11 CC/TP defendants
9 10/6/2022 Dismissal of 4 parties 3 plaintiffs v. 1 defendant
10 1 CC plaintiff v. 7 CC/TP defendants
11 03/17/2023 Amended Countercomplaint 1 CC plaintiff v. 5 CC/TP defendants
12
13 As illustrated above, this case at one point involved fourteen counterclaim/third
14 party defendants. With respect to the complaints, the number of plaintiffs has varied
15 from as few as three to as many as eight. And Defendant has pressed counterclaims and
16 third party claims against as few as five and as many as fourteen parties. Ultimately, as
17 noted, the case boiled down to three plaintiffs (Windy Cove, Staffing and Management
18 Group, and HB Fuel) versus one defendant (Circle K), and one counterclaim plaintiff
19 (Circle K) versus five counterclaim/third party defendants (Windy Cove, Staffing and
20 Management Group, HB Fuel, Mohammad Bahour, and Hamid Kalhor).
21 Assigning time to five parties when Defendant pressed its claims against more than
22 double that number for nearly half of this case is disproportionate. However, much, if not
23 all, of the work here was necessary regardless of the number of parties to the action. And
24 the discounts Defendant has already voluntarily applied are not negligible. Indeed, a
25 review of counsel’s billing records reflects that many of the unredacted entries are
26 discounted by some amount, ranging from one-half to one-sixth. In light of this, as well
27 as the significant reduction for the redactions, the Court finds that a further discount or
28 apportionment is not warranted on this record.
1 Plaintiffs also draw the Court attention to counsel’s work on motions in limine.
2 According to Plaintiffs, Defendant should not be entitled to recover for this work because
3 it was unnecessary and not reasonably extended. See Doc. No. 207 at 17. In reply,
4 Defendant contends that this work was reasonably necessary because it “understood that
5 the Court would set a trial date after those [dispositive] motions were decided, possibly
6 shortly thereafter.” Doc. No. 209 at 14. According to Defendant, it “was not required to
7 wait to do this work until after the summary judgment motions were filed or decided.”
8 Id.
9 The Court agrees with Defendant’s general position that in litigation, some work
10 almost always turns out, in retrospect, to have been unnecessary. See id. But with
11 respect to motions in limine, it appears that counsel’s work was not reasonably necessary
12 at the time, especially in the greater context of this case.
13 Judge Butcher issued the first Rule 16 Scheduling Order in October 2021. Doc.
14 No. 23. Throughout the course of this case, his scheduling orders were amended, and the
15 deadlines extended, five times. See Doc. Nos. 59, 66, 78, 100, 109. At least four of these
16 extensions were based upon the parties’ joint request. Doc. Nos. 55, 65, 77, 108.
17 Relevant here, in August 2022, the operative scheduling order provided a January 27,
18 2022 dispositive motions deadline. Doc. No. 66. Judge Butcher extended that deadline
19 to February 24, 2023 in November 2022. Doc. No. 100. According to the last of Judge
20 Butcher’s amended scheduling orders, issued in February 2023, the deadline for filing
21 dispositive motions was March 27, 2023. See Doc. No. 109.
22 As Judge Butcher explained in his initial scheduling order, dispositive pretrial
23 motions include motions for summary judgment and motions addressing Daubert issues;
24 pursuant to the undersigned’s Civil Chambers Rules, the deadline is not applicable to
25 motions in limine. See Doc. No. 23 at 3 fn.1; see also Civ. Chambers R. IX. The Court
26 does not hear motions in limine until the final pretrial conference, and these motions are
27 not due until 28 days in advance of that hearing. Civ. Chambers R. IX. One purpose of
28 this chambers rule is so that parties do not expend unnecessary time and resources on
1 pretrial motions before the matter is deemed triable. It also appears to the Court that
2 motions in limine are not appropriate unless and until an opposing party seeks to admit,
3 or demonstrates an intention to offer, the disputed evidence into the record.
4 Here, the billing records reflect counsel was working on motions in limine between
5 September 2022 and December 2022. During this time, there was no trial scheduling
6 order, and thus, no impending deadline to file motions in limine, and the dispositive
7 motions deadline was still some 3–4 months away. The Court appreciates counsel’s
8 diligence and proactive approach to this litigation. But it was not reasonably necessary to
9 draft motions in limine in September–December 2022. Even assuming the Court set the
10 case for trial expeditiously, in light of the complexity of this case and the record,
11 including the summary judgment record, trial was reasonably at least a year away.
12 Moreover, a motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to test the admissibility of
13 testimony and evidence. In the Fall of 2022, there was no reasonably anticipated scope
14 of the triable issues, if any, nor did Defendant know what evidence Plaintiffs sought to
15 introduce at trial. For these reasons, the Court finds this time was not reasonably
16 expended and therefore further reduces counsel’s award by $2,955.00.6
17 Having reviewed the remainder of Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court finds that
18 additional reductions on this record are not warranted. The Court will not further
19 penalize counsel’s block billing where the entries reflect the entirety of the work was
20 reasonably necessary and recoverable.
21 Finally, Defendant asks the Court to award counsel $24,650 for preparing this
22 motion for attorney’s fees. See Doc. No. 197 at 23. According to counsel, various
23 persons within the firm spent “at least” 75 hours drafting the motion and supporting
24 declaration and documentation, redacting privileged information, and allocating the fees.
25
26
27 6 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ list of entries, see Doc. No. 207-6, but excludes the entries containing
redactions: (1.2 x $300) + (1.2 x $300) + (1.8 x $425) + (1.2 x $300) + (1.6 x $300) + (2.1 x $300)
28
1 Covington Decl. ¶ 36. This amount of time appears facially unreasonable; it does not
2 seem reasonably necessary for three experienced attorneys to each expend between 10–
3 25 hours drafting one motion for attorney’s fees and reviewing billing records. The
4 Court is also dubious of the asserted necessity to redact information from the records that
5 were nonetheless filed under seal. In any event, these hours are not supported by records
6 or other sufficient evidence from which the Court can deem these hours reasonable. The
7 billing records end in April 2023, and none of the entries relate to attorney’s fees.
8 Moreover, only Mr. Covington has submitted a declaration in support of the motion.
9 Accordingly, the Court declines to award counsel the full amount of fees sought for its
10 work in preparing the motion. Rather, on this record, the Court finds that counsel
11 reasonably expended 25 hours, for a total award of $11,700;7 the Court reduces
12 Defendant’s request for fees incurred in preparing this motion by $12,950.
13 In sum, the Court finds that Defendant has produced records and evidence
14 sufficiently demonstrating the reasonableness of 2,442.3 hours. At the varying rates, this
15 equates to $806,582.11 in attorney’s fees.8
16 IV. CONCLUSION
17 Based upon the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to re-tax costs.
18 Defendant is entitled to taxable costs as follows:
19
20 Fees of the Clerk $402.00
21 Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts $24,607.00
22 Fees for witnesses $120.00
23 TOTAL COSTS TAXED in favor of Defendant $25,129.00
24
25
26 7 Mr. Covington submits he spent 25 hours at his hourly rate of $468. See Covington Decl. ¶ 36.
8 Defendant seeks $1,103,799.55 in attorney’s fees in connection with counsel’s work on this case.
27 Reducing the award for the redacted entries ($277,596.04), the entries related to the Dismissed Plaintiffs
($3,716.40), the motions in limine entries ($2,955.00), and the unsupported time spent preparing the
28
1 The Court further GRANTS IN PART Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and
2 || AWARDS Defendant attorney’s fees in the amount of $806,582.11.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 Dated: February 1, 2024
5 Mitek M = highly
6 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 ATTACHMENT 1 – CHART OF ENTRIES WITH
13
REDACTIONS
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Name Hours Rate Amount
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.7 $ 300.00 $ 210.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 5.00
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 977.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Covington 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 437.14
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 977.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 218.57
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.4 $ 300.00 $ 180.00
Covington 3.2 $ 425.00 $ 1,360.00
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 291.43
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Pleau-Fuller 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.3 $ 300.00 $ 390.00
Covington 2.1 $ 425.00 $ 892.50
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 1.3 $ 425.00 $ 236.79
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Covington 2.8 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Covington 1.1 $ 425.00 $ 200.36
Covington 5.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,074.64
Pleau-Fuller 0.6 $ 300.00 $ 180.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 38.57
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 127.50
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 403.75
Covington 1.3 $ 425.00 $ 552.50
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 145.71
Fraidenburgh 0.4 $ 425.00 $ 170.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Covington 1.1 $ 425.00 $ 200.36
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.8 $ 300.00 $ 240.00
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 91.07
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 418.93
Pleau-Fuller 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 346.07
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 270.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 38.57
Pleau-Fuller 2.5 $ 300.00 $ 750.00
Covington 3.4 $ 425.00 $ 619.29
Fraidenburgh 3.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,445.00
Fraidenburgh 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Fraidenburgh 2.1 $ 425.00 $ 892.50
Pleau-Fuller 1.9 $ 300.00 $ 244.29
Roam 3.3 $ 300.00 $ 990.00
Covington 2 $ 425.00 $ 850.00
Fraidenburgh 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Roam 3 $ 300.00 $ 450.00
Fraidenburgh 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 977.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.4 $ 300.00 $ 51.43
Roam 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Fraidenburgh 2.2 $ 425.00 $ 935.00
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 0.6 $ 425.00 $ 255.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 12.86
Pleau-Fuller 0.4 $ 300.00 $ 120.00
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Covington 0.2 $ 425.00 $ 85.00
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 680.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 722.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 2 $ 425.00 $ 850.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 346.07
Pleau-Fuller 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Sityar 1.1 $ 138.00 $ 151.80
Covington 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,020.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.6 $ 300.00 $ 180.00
Roam 3.2 $ 300.00 $ 960.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Roam 5.4 $ 300.00 $ 1,620.00
Roam 4.5 $ 300.00 $ 1,350.00
Covington 2.5 $ 425.00 $ 1,062.50
Roam 3.3 $ 300.00 $ 990.00
Roam 5.1 $ 300.00 $ 1,530.00
Sityar 0.6 $ 138.00 $ 35.49
Covington 3.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 346.07
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 528.21
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 2 $ 425.00 $ 364.29
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Covington 5.4 $ 425.00 $ 2,295.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 64.29
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 27.60
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 2.5 $ 425.00 $ 531.25
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 270.00
Roam 0.6 $ 300.00 $ 77.14
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Covington 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,020.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.1 $ 300.00 $ 330.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 4.6 $ 425.00 $ 1,955.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.4 $ 300.00 $ 180.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 270.00
Sityar 0.3 $ 138.00 $ 17.74
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 680.00
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 25.71
Covington 0.3 $ 425.00 $ 127.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Roam 3.8 $ 300.00 $ 1,140.00
Sityar 0.3 $ 138.00 $ 17.74
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Roam 4.1 $ 300.00 $ 1,230.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Roam 4.2 $ 300.00 $ 1,260.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 25.71
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.1 $ 300.00 $ 330.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.4 $ 300.00 $ 120.00
Pleau-Fuller 4.1 $ 300.00 $ 1,230.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Roam 3.8 $ 300.00 $ 1,140.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.1 $ 300.00 $ 330.00
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Covington 4.9 $ 425.00 $ 2,082.50
Covington 2.1 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 12.86
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.2 $ 300.00 $ 360.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.4 $ 300.00 $ 120.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 115.71
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Covington 4.3 $ 425.00 $ 1,827.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 270.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Sityar 0.3 $ 138.00 $ 17.74
Covington 3.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,657.50
Covington 5.6 $ 425.00 $ 2,380.00
Pleau-Fuller 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Sityar 1.1 $ 138.00 $ 65.06
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Pleau-Fuller 1.7 $ 300.00 $ 218.57
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 11.83
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 163.93
Pleau-Fuller 4.8 $ 300.00 $ 617.14
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 5.91
Pleau-Fuller 2.9 $ 300.00 $ 435.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 528.21
Sityar 1.7 $ 138.00 $ 100.54
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 5.91
Goodman 2.4 $ 185.00 $ 190.29
Sityar 0.4 $ 138.00 $ 23.66
Pleau-Fuller 3.1 $ 300.00 $ 930.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 25.71
Pleau-Fuller 1.6 $ 300.00 $ 205.71
Sityar 1 $ 138.00 $ 138.00
Covington 2.2 $ 425.00 $ 935.00
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Pleau-Fuller 1 $ 300.00 $ 128.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 12.86
Pleau-Fuller 0.1 $ 300.00 $ 30.00
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 309.64
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 38.57
Sityar 0.4 $ 138.00 $ 55.20
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 27.60
Covington 1.1 $ 425.00 $ 200.36
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 25.71
Sityar 0.3 $ 138.00 $ 17.74
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 25.71
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 11.83
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 25.71
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,020.00
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 327.86
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 418.93
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Pleau-Fuller 3.2 $ 300.00 $ 960.00
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 0.6 $ 425.00 $ 255.00
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Pleau-Fuller 2.8 $ 300.00 $ 840.00
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.7 $ 300.00 $ 210.00
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 722.50
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 27.60
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 2.5 $ 425.00 $ 531.25
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Pleau-Fuller 3.1 $ 300.00 $ 930.00
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 27.60
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Pleau-Fuller 2.4 $ 300.00 $ 720.00
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Covington 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,020.00
Covington 2.7 $ 425.00 $ 1,147.50
Sityar 0.6 $ 138.00 $ 82.80
Sityar 0.8 $ 138.00 $ 110.40
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 4.2 $ 425.00 $ 1,785.00
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Pleau-Fuller 3.9 $ 300.00 $ 1,170.00
Covington 6.4 $ 425.00 $ 2,720.00
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 318.75
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Covington 3.7 $ 425.00 $ 1,572.50
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 722.50
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 5.9 $ 425.00 $ 2,507.50
Pleau-Fuller 3.1 $ 300.00 $ 930.00
Sityar 0.7 $ 138.00 $ 96.60
Sityar 0.5 $ 138.00 $ 69.00
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Sityar 0.8 $ 138.00 $ 110.40
Covington 4.8 $ 425.00 $ 2,040.00
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 680.00
Sityar 2.4 $ 138.00 $ 331.20
Sityar 0.5 $ 138.00 $ 69.00
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 1.1 $ 425.00 $ 200.36
Covington 3.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,657.50
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Pleau-Fuller 3.9 $ 300.00 $ 501.43
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 5.4 $ 425.00 $ 2,295.00
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 4.8 $ 425.00 $ 2,040.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Covington 0.6 $ 425.00 $ 255.00
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Sityar 1 $ 138.00 $ 138.00
Sityar 0.5 $ 138.00 $ 69.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Fraidenburgh 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,020.00
Sityar 0.6 $ 138.00 $ 82.80
Sityar 0.7 $ 138.00 $ 96.60
Covington 4.5 $ 425.00 $ 1,912.50
Covington 1.3 $ 425.00 $ 552.50
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Pleau-Fuller 3.9 $ 300.00 $ 1,170.00
Covington 0.6 $ 425.00 $ 255.00
Covington 4.3 $ 425.00 $ 783.21
Pleau-Fuller 4.2 $ 300.00 $ 1,260.00
Covington 3.8 $ 425.00 $ 1,615.00
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Fraidenburgh 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 1.3 $ 425.00 $ 552.50
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 977.50
Pleau-Fuller 1.6 $ 300.00 $ 205.71
Pleau-Fuller 2.5 $ 300.00 $ 750.00
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 27.60
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 722.50
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 4.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,870.00
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 27.60
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Covington 7.3 $ 425.00 $ 3,102.50
Roam 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Covington 4.9 $ 425.00 $ 2,082.50
Fraidenburgh 1 $ 425.00 $ 425.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Roam 6.2 $ 300.00 $ 1,860.00
Covington 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,020.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Roam 5.4 $ 300.00 $ 1,620.00
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Roam 5.3 $ 300.00 $ 1,590.00
Covington 2.8 $ 425.00 $ 1,190.00
Covington 1.1 $ 425.00 $ 467.50
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 5.4 $ 425.00 $ 2,295.00
Roam 2.4 $ 300.00 $ 308.57
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 0.4 $ 425.00 $ 170.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 680.00
Covington 0.4 $ 425.00 $ 170.00
Sityar 0.4 $ 138.00 $ 55.20
Pleau-Fuller 0.4 $ 300.00 $ 120.00
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 722.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.8 $ 300.00 $ 240.00
Yavin 0.2 $ 185.00 $ 37.00
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 0.3 $ 425.00 $ 127.50
Covington 0.6 $ 425.00 $ 255.00
Fraidenburgh 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 64.29
Roam 1.4 $ 300.00 $ 420.00
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Covington 5.9 $ 425.00 $ 2,507.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Pleau-Fuller 3.6 $ 300.00 $ 1,080.00
Pleau-Fuller 2.6 $ 300.00 $ 780.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 115.71
Roam 3.3 $ 300.00 $ 990.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Roam 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 270.00
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 722.50
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.7 $ 300.00 $ 210.00
Pleau-Fuller 3.7 $ 300.00 $ 370.00
Covington 0.4 $ 425.00 $ 170.00
Roam 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 680.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.4 $ 300.00 $ 120.00
Roam 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Roam 1 $ 300.00 $ 300.00
Covington 3 $ 425.00 $ 1,275.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Roam 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 270.00
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Fraidenburgh 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 418.93
Covington 3.5 $ 425.00 $ 1,487.50
Covington 1.3 $ 425.00 $ 236.79
Pleau-Fuller 0.8 $ 300.00 $ 102.86
Covington 0.7 $ 425.00 $ 297.50
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 27.60
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 977.50
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Fraidenburgh 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Sityar 0.2 $ 138.00 $ 27.60
Roam 4.8 $ 300.00 $ 1,440.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 1.3 $ 425.00 $ 552.50
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Fraidenburgh 1.3 $ 425.00 $ 552.50
Sityar 0.5 $ 138.00 $ 69.00
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Pleau-Fuller 2.8 $ 300.00 $ 840.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 722.50
Covington 0.8 $ 425.00 $ 340.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Roam 3.4 $ 300.00 $ 1,020.00
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 327.86
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 163.93
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 346.07
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 5.91
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.9 $ 300.00 $ 270.00
Roam 5.8 $ 300.00 $ 1,740.00
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 1.1 $ 425.00 $ 467.50
Covington 2.2 $ 425.00 $ 935.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Covington 2.1 $ 425.00 $ 892.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Pleau-Fuller 2.1 $ 300.00 $ 630.00
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Roam 1.1 $ 300.00 $ 330.00
Covington 0.6 $ 425.00 $ 109.29
Covington 0.4 $ 425.00 $ 170.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 218.57
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 680.00
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 273.21
Fraidenburgh 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 273.21
Covington 2.7 $ 425.00 $ 491.79
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 2.8 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 418.93
Covington 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,020.00
Fraidenburgh 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Fraidenburgh 3.4 $ 425.00 $ 619.29
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 1.7 $ 425.00 $ 309.64
Fraidenburgh 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,020.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 0.2 $ 425.00 $ 85.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 163.93
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Pleau-Fuller 1.2 $ 300.00 $ 360.00
Covington 3.7 $ 425.00 $ 1,572.50
Covington 3.8 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 0.3 $ 425.00 $ 54.64
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Covington 0.4 $ 425.00 $ 170.00
Covington 0.3 $ 425.00 $ 54.64
Covington 0.6 $ 425.00 $ 255.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 2.2 $ 425.00 $ 467.50
Covington 2.3 $ 425.00 $ 977.50
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 218.57
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 218.57
Covington 3.4 $ 425.00 $ 1,445.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Covington 0.6 $ 425.00 $ 109.29
Covington 2.4 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Sityar 0.3 $ 138.00 $ 41.40
Roam 3.7 $ 300.00 $ 555.00
Covington 1.5 $ 425.00 $ 637.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Sityar 0.5 $ 138.00 $ 69.00
Sityar 3.2 $ 138.00 $ 441.60
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Covington 0.2 $ 425.00 $ 85.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 1 $ 425.00 $ 425.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.5 $ 300.00 $ 450.00
Sityar 0.5 $ 138.00 $ 69.00
Covington 2.9 $ 425.00 $ 1,232.50
Covington 0.9 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 382.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.6 $ 300.00 $ 180.00
Covington 1.6 $ 425.00 $ 680.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.5 $ 300.00 $ 150.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.6 $ 300.00 $ 180.00
Covington 1.8 $ 425.00 $ 765.00
Covington 0.4 $ 425.00 $ 170.00
Sityar 0.1 $ 138.00 $ 13.80
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Covington 1.1 $ 425.00 $ 467.50
Covington 0.5 $ 425.00 $ 212.50
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 300.00 $ 60.00
Pleau-Fuller 0.3 $ 300.00 $ 90.00
Covington 0.3 $ 425.00 $ 127.50
Pleau-Fuller 3.1 $ 300.00 $ 930.00
Pleau-Fuller 2.5 $ 300.00 $ 750.00
Roam 1.9 $ 300.00 $ 570.00
Roam 5.3 $ 300.00 $ 1,590.00
Covington 1.1 $ 425.00 $ 467.50
Covington 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Roam 0.8 $ 300.00 $ 240.00
Covington 2.8 $ 425.00 $ 1,190.00
Covington 1.2 $ 425.00 $ 510.00
Roam 4.5 $ 300.00 $ 1,350.00
Fraidenburgh 1.4 $ 425.00 $ 595.00
Pleau-Fuller 1.1 $ 300.00 $ 330.00
Covington 3.8 $ 425.00 $ 1,615.00
Covington 1.9 $ 425.00 $ 807.50
Sityar 0.3 $ 138.00 $ 41.40
Sityar 0.2 $ 145.00 $ 29.00
Sityar 0.1 $ 145.00 $ 14.50
Sityar 0.1 $ 145.00 $ 14.50
Covington 0.5 $ 468.00 $ 234.00
Covington 0.9 $ 468.00 $ 421.20
Covington 1.6 $ 468.00 $ 748.80
Covington 0.8 $ 468.00 $ 374.40
Covington 1.7 $ 468.00 $ 795.60
Pleau-Fuller 0.2 $ 345.00 $ 69.00
Covington 2 $ 468.00 $ 936.00
Covington 1.4 $ 468.00 $ 655.20
Covington 0.9 $ 468.00 $ 421.20
Covington 3.8 $ 468.00 $ 1,778.40
Covington 1.2 $ 468.00 $ 561.60
Covington 4.9 $ 468.00 $ 2,293.20
Covington 1.4 $ 468.00 $ 327.60
Covington 3.9 $ 468.00 $ 1,825.20
Covington 1 $ 468.00 $ 468.00
Covington 1.9 $ 468.00 $ 889.20
Covington 0.9 $ 468.00 $ 421.20
Judd 4.2 $ 468.00 $ 1,965.60
Total 817.2 $ 277,596.04