San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- San Diego County Credit Union v. Cefcu (2023-04-21) — remanded; San Diego County Credit Union v. Cefcu (2023-04-21) — remanded — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed supplemental briefing on SDCCU's motion for attorneys' fees, where CEFCU objected to the lack of foundation for the billing records submitted by SDCCU. The court ordered SDCCU to file a supplemental declaration providing the necessary foundation and admissibility for the underlying invoices by December 2, 2021.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order directing SDCCU to provide a second supplemental declaration“to the extent that SDCCU can provide such information, it shall file a supplemental declaration on or before December 2, 2021.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the declaration lacked the necessary foundation to admit the billing records as business records under FRE 803(6). Ordering the party to cure this evidentiary defect before ruling on the merits of the fee motion is a standard and appropriate procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short procedural directive. It correctly applies the business records exception to identify the missing foundation in the current declaration and orders the party to cure the defect. It does not reach the merits of the fee calculation or the reasonableness of the hours, which is appropriate given the evidentiary gap.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT Case No.: 18cv967-GPC(RBB) UNION, 12 ORDER DIRECTING SDCCU TO Plaintiff, 13 PROVIDE SECOND v. SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION 14 CITIZENS EQUITY FIRST CREDIT 15 UNION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 In the supplemental briefing on SDCCU’s motion for attorneys’ fees, CEFCU 19 objects to the declaration of Jesse Salen arguing he has no personal knowledge of what 20 amount of time each attorney devoted to the tasks identified in the billing record and no 21 evidence to support the apportionment for certain entries. (Dkt. No. 386 at 9-10, 16.) 22 SDCCU responds that it has provided admissible evidence based on its billing records. 23 (Dkt. No. 390 at 4 (citing Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 24 2013) (“[T]o determine whether attorneys for the prevailing party could have reasonably 25 billed the hours they claim to their private clients, the district court should begin with the 26 billing records the prevailing party has submitted.”).) 27 28 1 Mr. Salen provides a declaration stating that he has attached a redacted copy of the 2 ||invoices for professional services charged to SDCCU, (Dkt. No. 385-2, Salen Decl. □ 6), 3 || yet provides no foundation or admissibility for the underlying invoices or billing records. 4 || See Padgett v. Loventhal, No. C 04-03946 JW, 2007 WL 3071031, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5 || 19, 2007) (“bills and invoices from an attorney are business records within the meaning 6 || [of Federal] Rule [of Evidence] 803(6) and are admissible by a party to prove that party's 7 || attorney fees.”) (citing MRT Const. Inc. v. Hardrives, Inc., 158 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 1998)). 8 the extent that SDCCU can provide such information, it shall file a supplemental 9 || declaration on or before December 2, 2021. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: November 30, 2021 <= 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28