Fraga v. The DuBoff Law Group, LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re 	No. 00-44500 TT
Chapter 7
LARRY FRAGA, etc.,
Debtor.
___________________________/
LARRY FRAGA, 	A.P. No. 06-4005 AT
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE DUBOFF LAW GROUP, LLC,
etc.,
Defendant.
___________________________/
FINAL MEMORANDUM RE RULE 9011 SANCTIONS
On 	April 	14, 	2006, 	the 	Court 	issued 	a 	Memorandum 	of 	Decision
(the “Memorandum”) granting the Defendant The DuBoff Law Group, LLC’s
(the 	“DuBoff 	Law 	Firm”) 	motion 	for 	sanctions 	under 	Bankruptcy 	Rule
9011. 	The Court gave the DuBoff Law Firm 30 days to file a statement
of 	attorneys’ 	fees, 	Larry 	Fraga 	(“Fraga”) 	and 	Kristine 	Kelly
(“Kelly”) (collectively the “Respondents”) 14 days from the date of
service 	of 	the 	statement 	to 	file 	an 	objection 	to 	the 	amount 	of 	the
Signed: May 19, 2006
________________________________________
LESLIE TCHAIKOVSKY
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
May 22, 2006
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 06-04005 Doc# 52 Filed: 05/19/06 Entered: 05/22/06 16:04:36 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1The Court stated in the Memorandum that it was considering
imposing additional sanctions against Kelly. 	It gave Kelly 30 days
from the date of service of the Memorandum to file a statement
explaining her conduct. 	Kelly filed nothing clearly responsive to
this direction. 	However, she may consider the objection filed to
the fee statement responsive to it. 	If so, it was timely filed,
and the Court has considered it in that respect as well as an
objection to the attorney fee sanction award.
2However, the DuBoff Law Firm is incorrect that the Court made
a blanket award of all of its fees. 	Even as a Rule 9011 sanction,
only reasonable fees may appropriately be awarded. 	The purpose of
requiring a fee statement to be filed and giving the respondent
time to object is to permit the Court to determine the reasonable
amount of fees.
2
fees 	requested, 	and 	the 	DuBoff 	Law 	Firm 	7 	days 	from 	the 	date 	of
service of the objection to file a reply. 1 	The parties complied with
these deadlines. 	The Court has reviewed their filings.
In 	its 	statement, 	the 	DuBoff 	Law 	Firm 	requested 	an 	award 	of
$16,996 	in 	fees 	and 	$331.81 	in 	costs. 	The 	Respondents 	objected 	to
the 	fees 	as 	excessive. 	They 	advanced 	various 	arguments 	as 	to 	why
they were excessive. 	In its reply, the DuBoff Law Firm responded to
the 	Respondents’ 	objection. 	It 	also 	noted 	that 	it 	had 	incurred 	an
additional $2,700 in fees since filing the statement. 	It requested
that this amount be included in the award.
For 	the 	most 	part, 	the 	Court 	agrees 	with 	the 	DuBoff 	Law 	Firm
that 	the 	objections 	to 	its 	fees 	made 	by 	the 	Respondents 	have 	no
merit. 2 	The Court agrees with the Respondents that the fees requested
for “paralegal” services are excessive. 	Although true paralegal time
can 	be 	included 	in 	a 	fee 	award, 	the 	Court 	does 	not 	agree 	with 	the
DuBoff 	Law 	Firm 	that 	the 	work 	performed 	by 	the 	paralegals, 	as
described in the billing statement, properly constitutes legitimate
Case: 06-04005 Doc# 52 Filed: 05/19/06 Entered: 05/22/06 16:04:36 Page 2 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
paralegal 	work. 	For 	the 	most 	part, 	it 	appears 	clerical 	in 	nature.
Consequently, 	the 	Court 	will 	not 	permit 	it 	to 	be 	included 	in 	the
award. 	The Court also agrees with Respondents that the time spent by
Leonard Duboff appears to have been unnecessary given the experience
of 	the 	other 	attorneys 	on 	the 	case. 	In 	sum, 	the 	fees 	requested 	in
the fee statement will be reduced to $14,721. 	Costs will be allowed
in full.
The additional fees incurred may also be included provided they
all represent time spent by the principal attorney. 	Thus, the total
award will be $17,421 in fees and $331.81 in costs. 	As stated in the
Memorandum, this award will be jointly and severally imposed against
Fraga 	and 	Kelly. 	The 	Court 	is 	satisfied 	that 	this 	award 	is
sufficient 	to 	deter 	future 	misconduct. 	Counsel 	for 	the 	Duboff 	Law
Firm 	is 	directed 	to 	submit 	a 	proposed 	form 	of 	order 	in 	accordance
with this decision.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case: 06-04005 Doc# 52 Filed: 05/19/06 Entered: 05/22/06 16:04:36 Page 3 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
COURT SERVICE LIST
James Filiault
The DuBoff Law Group, LLC
6665 SW Hampton St., Ste. 200
Portland, OR 97223-8357
Kristine M. Kelly
4025 N. Fresno St., #103
Fresno, CA93726
Case: 06-04005 Doc# 52 Filed: 05/19/06 Entered: 05/22/06 16:04:36 Page 4 of 4