TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., v. Matthews

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
TD AMERITRADE, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES RICHARD MATTHEWS,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:16-cv-00136-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Before 	the 	Court 	at 	Docket 	249 	is 	Plaintiffs’ 	TD 	Ameritrade 	Inc., 	TD
Ameritrade 	Holding 	Corporation, 	TD 	Ameritrade 	IP 	Company, 	Inc. 	and 	TD
Ameritrade Services Company, Inc. (TD Ameritrade) motion for attorneys’ fees.
Defendant James Richard Mathews responded in opposition at Docket 251 and
TD Ameritrade replied at Docket 252.
TD Ameritrade requests that the Court award $42,429.55 in attorneys’ fees
to TD Ameritrade pursuant to Alaska Statutes §§ 09.45.167(a) and 09.45.164(c).
TD Ameritrade is entitled to a reasonable fee award in accordance with these
statutory provisions.1
Alaska State courts require that in a case such as this one where the party
1 See e.g., Cutler v. Kodiak Island Borough, 290 P.3d 415, 418 (Alaska 2012) (“A person who
wrongfully records an NCCL lien is liable to the property owner for actual and punitive damages,
as well as costs and reasonable attorney fees.”) (citing Alaska Stat. § 09.45.167(a)).
Case 3:16-cv-00136-SLG Document 253 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:16-cv-00136-SLG, TD Ameritrade, et al. v. Matthews
Order re Motion for Attorneys’ fees
Page 2 of 3
requesting fees chose out-of-state representation, courts should award “the fee
customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services.”2 	In the context of
Rule 82, the Supreme Court of Alaska has explained that attorneys’ fees must be
“reasonable.”3 	The Supreme Court relied on the Alaska Rules of Professional
Conduct 1.5, which enumerates eight factors “to be considered in determining the
reasonableness of a fee,” including consideration of “the fee customarily charged
in the locality for similar legal services.”4 Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has recognized
that attorneys’ fees in the context of a “Lodestar” fee award should reflect the
prevailing market rate in the forum in which the district court is located.5
TD Ameritrade failed to submit evidence showing that the requested hourly
rates it submitted are in accordance with those customarily charged in the District
of Alaska. 	The United States Supreme Court has held that “the burden is on the
fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own
affidavits—that 	the 	requested 	rates 	are 	in 	line 	with 	those 	prevailing 	in 	the
community 	for 	similar 	services 	by 	lawyers 	of 	reasonably 	comparable 	skill,
2 Nautilus Marine Enters., Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 332 P.3d 554, 559 (Alaska 2014) (citing
Alaska R. Prof’l Conduct 1.5(a)(3)).
3 Id. at 558 (citing Alaska R. Civ. P. 82(b)(2) (providing that a fee award must be based on the
“prevailing party’s reasonable actual attorneys’ fees which were necessarily incurred”)).
4 Id. at 558-59.
5 See e.g., Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Generally, when
determining a reasonable hourly rate, the relevant community is the forum in which the district
court sits.”).
Case 3:16-cv-00136-SLG Document 253 Filed 10/04/22 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:16-cv-00136-SLG, TD Ameritrade, et al. v. Matthews
Order re Motion for Attorneys’ fees
Page 3 of 3
experience, and reputation.”6
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 249 is DENIED
without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a renewed motion within 14 days of the
date of this order that includes the requisite evidence to comply with the
locality rule.
DATED this 4th day of October, 2022 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6 Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984).
Case 3:16-cv-00136-SLG Document 253 Filed 10/04/22 Page 3 of 3