Howard Tounget v. City of Hemet et al

Filing 143

AMENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOROF DEFENDANT CITY OF HEMETSTATING AMOUNT OF COSTSTAXED AGAINST PLAINTIFF by Judge George H. Wu, Based on the foregoing, the Judgment entered on February 7, 2011 is herebyamended to tax costs against Plaintiff in the amount of $8,760.44. Plaintiff isordered to pay the City costs in the amount of $8,760.44. (pj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Eric S. Vail, City Attorney (SBN 160333)
CITY OF HEMET
Ronald F. Frank (SBN 109076)
Amy E. Hoyt, (SBN 149789)
E-mail: [e-mail]
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
2280 Market Street, Suite 300
Riverside, CA 92501-2121
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
CITY OF HEMET

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HOWARD TOUNGET,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CITY OF HEMET, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case No. EDCV 08-464-GW(AGRx)
AMENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR
OF DEFENDANT CITY OF HEMET
STATING AMOUNT OF COSTS
TAXED AGAINST PLAINTIFF
Judge: Hon. George Wu
Removal Filed: 04-04-08

On February 17, 2011, the court entered judgment in Defendant City of
Hemet’s (“City”) favor and ordered Plaintiff Howard Tounget (“Plaintiff”) to pay
the City’s costs. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment, filed
on February 22, 2011, is attached as Exhibit A.
On March 7, 2011, the district court ordered costs taxed against Plaintiff in
the amount of $8,445.44. A true and correct copy of the Bill of Costs is attached as
Exhibit B.
Plaintiff appealed. On May 22, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued its Memorandum Opinion affirming judgment in the City’s favor and
ordering Plaintiff to pay the City’s costs. A true and correct copy of the Court’s
Memorandum Opinion is attached as Exhibit C.

28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RIVERSIDE

-1-

PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF DEFT CITY OF HEMET

1

On June 14, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued its Mandate and taxed costs

2

against Plaintiff in the amount of $315.00. A true and correct copy of the Mandate

3

is attached as Exhibit D.

4

Based on the foregoing, the Judgment entered on February 7, 2011 is hereby

5

amended to tax costs against Plaintiff in the amount of $8,760.44. Plaintiff is

6

ordered to pay the City costs in the amount of $8,760.44.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: October 1, 2013
By:
Hon George H. Wu
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RIVERSIDE

-2-

PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF DEFT CITY OF HEMET

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

I declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action.
My business address is 2280 Market Street, Suite 300, Riverside, California 925012121.

3
4
5
6
7

On September 27, 2013, I served the following document(s):
[PROPOSED] AMENDED JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT
CITY OF HEMET STATING AMOUNT OF COSTS TAXED AGAINST
PLAINTIFF on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct
copy of such document(s), enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:
SERVICE LIST
(Update: 09-26-13)
Howard Tounget vs. City of Hemet
USDC Docket No.: 5:08-CV-00464-GW (AGR)

8
9
10

COUNSEL:
Via OverNite Express & U.S. Mail
Howard Tounget
25097 Jutland Drive
Hemet, CA 92544

REPRESENTING:
Plaintiff in Pro Se
One Copy

Previous Attorney for Plaintiff
Howard Tounget

16

Via CM/ECF System & U.S. Mail
Russell Cole, Esq.
Paul DePasquale, Esq.
DEPASQUALE & COLE
523 West Sixth Street, Suite 707
Los Angeles, CA 90014

17

(X)

BY U.S. MAIL, as noted. I am readily familiar with the business’
practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing
with the United States Postal Service. I know that the correspondence
was deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day
this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I
know that the envelope was sealed and, with postage thereon fully
prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date in the United
States mail at Riverside, California.

(X)

BY OVERNIGHT COURIER, as noted. I caused the abovereferenced document(s) to be deposited in a box or other facility
regularly maintained by the overnight courier, or I delivered the abovereferenced document(s) to an overnight courier service, for delivery to
the above addressee(s).

(X)

BY COURT CASE MANAGEMENT/ ELECTRONIC CASE
FILES (CM/ECF) SYSTEM, as noted. By submitting an electronic
version of the document listed above via CM/ECF System, pursuant to
the Court’s Administrative Order Regarding Electronic Filing in All
Ninth Circuit Cases dated August 19, 2008. I certify that said
transmission was completed and that all pages contained therein were
received.

11
12
13
14
15

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RIVERSIDE

Tel : [phone]
Fax : [phone]

Tel : [phone]
Fax : [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

-3-

PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF DEFT CITY OF HEMET

1
2
3

Executed September 27, 2013, Riverside, California.
(X)

(Federal)

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of
the bar of this court at whose direction the service was
made.

4

MARY E. HENSLEY

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W ILLIAMS &
S ORENSEN , LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RIVERSIDE

-4-

PROPOSED AMENDED JUDGMENT IN
FAVOR OF DEFT CITY OF HEMET