Rene R. Rodriguez v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RENE R. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY
OF ARIZONA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-56031
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-06786-JGB-
AJW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 2, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Rene Rodriguez settled a class action against defendant insurance
companies and asked the district court to award attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and
costs. The district court awarded Rodriquez attorneys’ fees and costs, but declined
FILED
MAY 12 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

to award expert fees. On appeal, Rodriquez challenges the district court’s denial of
expert fees. We affirm.
We review a denial of fees for an abuse of discretion; we must therefore
“affirm unless the district court applied the wrong legal standard or its findings
were illogical, implausible or without support in the record.” TrafficSchool.com,
Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th Cir. 2011).
District courts have discretion to reimburse expert witness fees if the
expert’s services were “crucial or indispensable” to the action. United States v.
City of Twin Falls, Idaho, 806 F.2d 862, 878 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other
grounds as recognized by Ass'n of Flight Attendants v. Horizon Air Indus., Inc.,
976 F.2d 541, 551-52 (9th Cir.1992); see also In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig.,
913 F. Supp. 1362, 1367 (N.D. Cal. 1996). An “application for expert witness fees
should be given ‘careful scrutiny,’ and district courts should exercise their
discretion ‘sparingly.’” City of Twin Falls, Idaho, 806 F.2d at 878.
Rodriquez’s motion for expert fees provided virtually no evidence from
which the district court could determine whether her experts were crucial or
indispensable, or even whether they were qualified. Rodriquez’s motion failed to
disclose (1) how many hours the experts worked, (2) what precisely each expert
did, (3) why each expert was crucial to the settlement, or (4) which experts actually
2

-- 2 of 3 --

worked on the case. Given the dearth of evidence Rodriquez provided, the district
court’s denial was clearly “support[ed] in the record” and thus not an abuse of
discretion. See TrafficSchool.com, Inc., 653 F.3d at 832.
Rodriquez suggests that she should have been given a second opportunity to
fix her defective motion. But when a party fails to file a proper motion and loses,
then later fixes her mistake and wants the court to reconsider—she must meet the
demanding standard applied to a motion for reconsideration. See School Dist. No.
1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993)
(requiring a showing of new evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in
controlling law). Rodriquez has not argued for reconsideration, nor is there any
indication that she could have met the requirements for reconsideration.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --