Weiss-Jenkins IV LLC v. Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation, No. 2:2014cv00954 - Document 105 (W.D. Wash. 2016)
Court Description: AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (AD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Weiss-Jenkins IV LLC v. Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation Doc. 105 THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 WEISS-JENKINS IV, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, No. 2:14-cv-00954-RSL AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT v. UTRECHT MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DICK BLICK HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT 1. Judgment Creditor: Weiss-Company IV, L.L.C., f/k/a Weiss-Jenkins IV LLC 2. Judgment Creditor’s Attorney: Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Rhys M. Farren 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004-5149 3. Judgment Debtors: Dick Blick Holdings, Inc.; and Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation 4. Judgment Debtor’s Attorney: Stephen C. Willey Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP 1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98101-2272 5. Judgment Amount: $826,483.93 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT (2:14-cv-00954-RSL) - 1 DWT 30127522v1 0094613-000009 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP L AW O FFICE S 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004-5149 425.646.6100 main · 425.646.6199 fax Dockets.Justia.com 6. Prejudgment Interest: $137,063.13 7. Post-Judgment Interest Rate: See 28 U.S.C. § 1961 8. Attorneys’ Fees: $170,888.50 9. Costs: $484.98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BASIS OF JUDGMENT The parties to this Amended Final Judgment are Plaintiff Weiss-Jenkins IV, a Washington limited liability company, now known as Weiss-Company IV, L.L.C. (“Weiss 8 Company”); and Defendants Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation (“Utrecht”) and Dick Blick 9 10 11 Holdings, Inc. (“Blick”) (together, “Utrecht/Blick”). This Court previously entered a Final Judgment in favor of Weiss Company (the “Final 12 Judgment”) [ECF No. 90]. The Final Judgment set forth in detail the history of the relevant 13 rulings and orders of this Court, including the Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for 14 15 Partial Summary Judgment (Sept. 14, 2015) [ECF No. 56] (reconsideration of which was also denied under the Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, 16 17 18 for Certification (Oct. 1, 2015) [ECF No. 58]); the Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (May 24, 2016) [ECF No. 83]; and the Final Judgment. A description of 19 the related motions, the court papers filed in support and in opposition to the motions and the 20 procedural history of this case is set forth within the Basis of Judgment section of the Final 21 Judgment, which is incorporated herein by this reference and not repeated here. 22 Weiss Company is the prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees under the parties’ 23 contract. Prior to entry of the Final Judgment, Weiss Company timely filed a Motion for 24 25 26 Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 86] (“Fee Motion”). The Court reviewed the following pleadings in support of and in opposition to the Fee Motion: 27 AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT (2:14-cv-00954-RSL) - 2 DWT 30127522v1 0094613-000009 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP L AW O FFICE S 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004-5149 425.646.6100 main · 425.646.6199 fax Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 86]; 2. Declaration of Rhys Farren in Support of Motion for Award of Fees and accompanying exhibits [ECF No. 87]; Declaration of Peter Gowell in Support of Motion for Award of Fees and accompanying exhibits [ECF No. 88]; 4. Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 93]; 5. Declaration of Stephen Willey in Support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 94]; 6. Plaintiff’s Reply on Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 95]; 7. Declaration of Boris Gaviria in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply on Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 96]; and 8. 2 1. 3. 1 Declaration of Rhys Farren in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply on Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees [ECF No. 97]. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 The Court conducted an independent review of Weiss Company’s counsel’s time records, the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, the billing records and reasonableness of time 15 spent on entries and considered the objections of Utrecht/Blick. The Court then entered an 16 17 Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees (July 12, 2016) [ECF No. 103], awarding Weiss Company 18 reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $170,888.50. In addition, the Clerk awarded costs 19 in the amount of $484.98 [ECF 100]. In the Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees, the Court 20 permitted Weiss Company to amend the judgment to include the award of attorneys’ fees. 21 NOW THEREFORE, 22 AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT 23 24 25 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 1. The previous Final Judgment [ECF No. 90] shall remain in effect as a judgment of this Court except as specifically amended herein. 27 AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT (2:14-cv-00954-RSL) - 3 DWT 30127522v1 0094613-000009 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP L AW O FFICE S 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004-5149 425.646.6100 main · 425.646.6199 fax 2. 1 2 Judgment is entered in favor of Weiss-Company IV, L.L.C., f/k/a Weiss-Jenkins IV LLC (“Weiss Company”) against Defendants Utrecht Manufacturing Corporation and Dick 3 Blick Holdings, Inc. (“Utrecht/Blick”), jointly and severally, for principal in the amount of 4 $826,483.93. 5 6 3. Judgment is further entered in favor of Weiss Company against Utrecht/Blick, jointly and severally, for prejudgment interest in the amount of $137,063.13. 1 7 4. Judgment is further entered in favor of Weiss Company against Utrecht/Blick, 8 9 jointly and severally, for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $170,888.50. 5. 10 11 jointly and severally, for costs in the amount of $484.98. 12 13 Judgment is further entered in favor of Weiss Company against Utrecht/Blick, 6. The Judgment on all amounts set forth above shall bear interest at the highest rate allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 14 7. This Amended Final Judgment shall be final under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 15 appealable. 16 Dated this 9th day of September, 2016. 17 18 19 A 20 THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK United States District Court Judge 21 22 23 24 1 25 26 The Final Judgment at ECF No. 90 awarded prejudgment interest in favor of Weiss Company in the amount of $135,427.37 “as of May 31, 2016, plus continuing prejudgment interest at the per diem rate of $204.47 to accrue on the principal judgment amount each day after May 31, 2016 until final judgment is entered.” Because Final Judgment was entered eight days later on June 8, 2016, the additional accrued prejudgment interest added is $1,635.76. 27 AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT (2:14-cv-00954-RSL) - 4 DWT 30127522v1 0094613-000009 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP L AW O FFICE S 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004-5149 425.646.6100 main · 425.646.6199 fax 1 2 Presented by: 3 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff Weiss-Jenkins IV LLC 4 5 6 7 8 9 By: /s/ Rhys M. Farren Rhys M. Farren, WSBA #19398 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 646-6100 Facsimile: (425) 646-6199 Email: rhysfarren@dwt.com 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT (2:14-cv-00954-RSL) - 5 DWT 30127522v1 0094613-000009 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP L AW O FFICE S 777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004-5149 425.646.6100 main · 425.646.6199 fax
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
