Tater-Alexander v. Amerjan et al

Filing 361

ORDER DENYING 360 Request for Reimbursement of Costs, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/11/2012. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

MICHAEL TATER-ALEXANDER,

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00372 – SKO

12

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS

Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

(Docket No. 360)
15

LONNIE R. AMERIJAN, et al.,

16
Defendants.
17
/
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION

20

On October 27, 2008, the Court issued an order appointing Andrew V. Stearns, Esq., and M.

21

Jeffery Kallis, Esq., as counsel. (Doc. 43.) The Court directed the appointed counsel to follow

22

General Order 230, adopted by the Court on May 17, 1988, found at the Court's website at

23

www.caed.uscourts.gov under General Orders. (Doc. 43.)

24

General Order 230 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

25

2.
Regulating cost expenditures and reimbursements, at least at the outset, shall
be handled on a case by case basis with each expenditure pre-approved. A simple
form for advance approval of expenditure shall be submitted ex parte for approval
by the magistrate or the district court. This form will set out the nature of the
contemplated expenditure, the reason for it, the anticipated amount and a summary
of previous costs. A recommended form titled, "Request for Authority to Incur
Costs (Appointed Counsel) and Request for Payment" is attached.

26
27
28

1
2
3

Counsel will be advised that the costs of depositions will be borne by the
Certified shorthand Reporters' fund pursuant to California Business & Professions
Code § 8030.2 et. seq. In the event that costs become excessive in a given case, the
judge or magistrate may either disapprove a contemplated expenditure, schedule a
discovery or status conference or take such other action as is deemed appropriate.

4
5

(United States District Court, Eastern District of California, General Order 230.)

6

Plaintiff's case was tried before a jury, who found in favor of Defendants and entered a

7

verdict against Plaintiff on May 11, 2011. (Doc. 335.) On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff's appointed

8

counsel filed a "Request for Authorization to Incur Costs and Request for Payment." (Doc. 344.)

9

The Request for Authorization to Incur Costs was denied on August 12, 2011. (Doc. 346.)

10

On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel renewed their "Request for Authorization to Incur

11

Costs and Request for Payments," seeking reimbursement of $24,773.15 in costs. (Doc. 360.) It is

12

this request that is currently pending before the Court.

13

II.

DISCUSSION

14

In denying counsel's June 3, 2011, request, the Court determined that counsel's request was

15

not sufficiently supported with detailed invoices, receipts, and dates of all expenditures. The Court

16

also specifically noted the following:

17
18
19
20
21

Any renewed motion for reimbursement of expenses shall include a declaration from
counsel regarding whether any of the requested expenditures was approved by the
Court prior to the expense being incurred, and if not, why such prior authorization
for the expense was not sought by counsel as required by General Order 230.
Further, if prior authorization was not sought, counsel should set forth grounds
indicating why any expenditures should be awarded in light of the failure to comply
with General Order 230.
(Doc. 346, 3:19-24.)

22

Counsel's February 23, 2012, renewed "Request for Authorization to Incur Costs and

23

Requests for Payments" does not address whether the requested expenditures were approved by the

24

Court prior to the costs being incurred. (See Doc. 360.) Further, there is no information on the

25

docket that indicates any prior approval of the requested expenses was sought. The objective of

26

prior-approval is to manage the costs incurred by counsel and to provide counsel with guidance on

27

the nature and extent of costs that may be reimbursed. When counsel neglects to seek prior approval

28
2

1

of cost expenditures,1 it deprives the Court of the opportunity to consider the extent of the costs

2

before they are incurred and to provide counsel guidance on what costs will be reimbursed.

3

In view of the lack of prior approval for the costs incurred and because the latest request for

4

reimbursement does not address the issue of prior approval pursuant to General Order 230, as

5

required by the Court's order of August 12, 2011, the "Request for Authorization to Incur Costs and

6

Request for Payment" is DENIED.

7

III. CONCLUSION

8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request for Authorization to Incur Costs
and Request for Payment is DENIED.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:
ie14hj

April 11, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

There are instances that seeking prior court approval will not be feasible – e.g., where panel counsel is
appointed on the eve of particular deadlines that require immediate action on the part of counsel. That does not appear
to be the situation in this case.

3