Iwasaki v. Breeze Aviation Group Inc

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
FUMIKO IWASAKI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BREEZE AVIATION GROUP INC., a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.
RULING & ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY
FEE AWARD AMOUNT IN PART
Case No. 2:24-cv-00817
District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
BACKGROUND
On September 9, 2025, Magistrate Judge Pead issued a ruling granting Defendant Breeze
Aviation Group’s (“Breeze”) its “attorney fees and costs incurred in opposing David Neeleman’s
deposition.”1 Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed an Affidavit in support of its attorney fee
request and Plaintiff Fumiko Iwasaki (“Iwasaki”) objected.2
1 ECF No. 35, Memorandum Decision and Order.
2 ECF No. 36, Affidavit/Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Award of Attorney Fees. Because the
filing was not captioned as a “Motion” it was not flagged on the court docket as an active and pending
matter. The District Court Clerk’s Office has since modified Defendant’s filing to reflect a “Motion” and
Defendant has been given an opportunity to file its Reply. See, ECF No. 37 Plaintiff’s Memorandum in
Opposition; ECF No. 39, Clerk’s Office Modification of Docket; ECF No. 41, Plaintiff’s Reply to
Response.
Case 2:24-cv-00817-RJS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

-2-
ORDER
In total, Breeze seeks $14,108.50 for 37 hours of work related to filing Defendant’s
Short-Form Discovery Motion,3 Motion for Leave4 and Motion for Protective Order.5 Plaintiff
does not dispute that the hourly rates for Defendant’s counsel are reasonable for litigation
attorneys of similar experience in the Salt Lake legal market. Plaintiff does, however, take issue
with the award of fees incurred after it withdrew David Neeleman’s deposition notice, as well as
the number of attorneys working on similar tasks in the case. 6
First, as discussed in the court’s Memorandum Decision granting fees, although Iwasaki
withdrew Mr. Neeleman’s deposition notice, Plaintiff did so only after Defendant’s motion for
protection was filed. Pursuant to Rule 37, attorney fees may be awarded not only when a
discovery motion is granted, but also where “the disclosure or requested discovery is provided
[or a deposition is withdrawn] after the motion was filed.”7 Second, the court is generally
hesitant to “second-guess” the time spent by counsel or the amount of legal resources needed. 8
3 ECF No. 20, Defendant’s Short Form Discovery Motion.
4 ECF No. 22, Defendant’s Motion for Leave.
5 ECF No. 26, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order.
6 ECF No. 37; ECF No. 37-1, Declaration of Galen Shimoda.
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (attorney fees may be awarded not only when a discovery motion is granted
but also where “the disclosure or requested discover is provided [or a deposition is withdrawn] after the
motion was filed.”).
8 Reid v. LVNV Funding LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115932, at *5 (D. Utah Aug. 29, 2016); see also
Norman v Housing Authority of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1302 (11th Cir. 1988) (“There is nothing
inherently unreasonable about a client having multiple attorneys, and they may all be compensated if they
are not unreasonably doing the same work and are being compensated for the distinct contribution of each
lawyer”).
Case 2:24-cv-00817-RJS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

-3-
Further, Plaintiff’s objection is not specific as to exactly which fee amounts he disputes.9
Nonetheless, Defendant’s Short-Form Discovery Motion and Motion for Leave total
approximately four (4) pages of straightforward work product, 10 yet account for 8.8 hours of
work for a total of $3,411.50.11 While the court recognizes the significant expertise of counsel
and the quality of work performed, the court does not find this amount reasonable and reduces
the amount by half, to $1,705.75, and thereafter reduces the overall fee amount by this number.
Based on the above analysis, the court concludes that Breeze’s Motion is granted in part
and Defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $12,402.75.12
Dated this 14th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Dustin B. Pead
U.S. District Magistrate Judge
9 For example, Iwasaki states “Mr. Peterson billed 6.7 hours at $500 ($3,350) for this single discovery
motion” without citing to the date of the filing to which he refers. Further, the time report does not
evidence a singular billing for 6.7 hours of work by Mr. Peterson. See ECF No. 37; ECF No. 36-1. If
Plaintiff reached this amount by combining billing dates, he does not indicate which dates he has
combined for purposes of his calculations.
10 For example, the majority of Breeze’s Short Form Discovery Motion contains case citations for legal
authorities on the apex doctrine factors. See ECF No. 20 at 2.
11 In reaching this calculation the court considers Breeze’s billing “narrative” and combines billing
amounts claimed by Defendant on: June 27, 2025 (0.10/$34.50), June 30, 2025 (1.60/$552.00), July 1,
2025 (1.80/$621.00), July 1, 2025 (0.50/$250.00), July 7, 2025 (0.50/$172.50), July 8, 2025
(2.20/$759.00), July 8, 2025 (0.80/$450.00), July 9, 2025 (0.50/$172.50), July 9, 2025 (0.30/$150.00),
July 21, 2025 (0.50/$250.00).
12 ECF No. 36, Defendant’s Motion for Attorney Fees.
Case 2:24-cv-00817-RJS Document 43 Filed 01/14/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3