Hall et al v. Mims et al

Filing 208

ORDER on Stipulation for Attorneys' Fees 207 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/3/2018. (Hellings, J)

1 DONALD SPECTER (SBN 83925)
ALISON HARDY (SBN 135966)
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE
1917 Fifth Street
3
Berkeley, CA 94710
4 Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
5
MAUREEN P. ALGER (SBN 208522)
6 MONIQUE R. SHERMAN (SBN 227494)
COOLEY LLP
7 Five Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
8 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
9 Telephone: [phone]
10

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON NEXT PAGE]
11
12 QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES,
ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH,
13 and BRIAN MURPHY on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
v.
16
COUNTY OF FRESNO,
17
Defendant.
18

Case No. 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY (SBN 170259)
SHANNON SORRELLS (SBN 278492)
COOLEY LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone: [phone]
MELINDA BIRD (SBN 102236)
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
350 South Bixel Street, Suite 209
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

1 On November 2, 2015, the Court approved the Consent Decree in this action, which includes a
2 procedure by which plaintiffs collect payment for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection
3
4

with the Consent Decree. Although the Court’s Order dismissed the action, the Court specifically
retained “continuing jurisdiction to interpret, implement and enforce the settlement, and all orders

5
6

and judgement entered in connection therewith.” Order at 3 [Dkt. No. 179].
Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the defendants have, for the first three years of the

7

8 remedial phase, paid a flat fee of $40,000 per year to plaintiffs for fees and costs incurred in the
9 remedial phase of this action, delivered at the beginning of each monitoring year following
10 approval of the Consent Decree. Recognizing that plaintiffs’ monitoring work in this remedial
11

phase has been more encompassing than the parties had reasonably anticipated, the parties now

12
agree that, within 60 days of the beginning of the fourth monitoring year, defendants shall deliver
13
14

payment of $60,000 for plaintiffs’ fees and costs. In subsequent monitoring years, defendants

15 shall deliver to plaintiffs $18,750 on a quarterly basis for the duration of the Consent Decree,
16 within 30 days of each calendar quarter of monitoring.
WHEREFORE, defendants agree to pay plaintiffs’ counsel

17
18

•
•

19

$60,000 by January 3, 2019 for the fourth year of monitoring in this action; and
$18,750 on a quarterly basis for the duration of the Consent Decree within 30 days

20
of each calendar quarter, following the fourth year of monitoring.

21
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26

//

27
//
28
2
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM

1

AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES:

2
3

Dated: September 17, 2018

PRISON LAW OFFICE
/s/ Alison Hardy
Alison Hardy

4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff Quentin Hall, Shawn
Gonzales, Robert Merryman, Brian Murphy,
Dawn Singh, and the Plaintiff Class

6
7
8 Dated: September 24, 2018

FRESNO COUNTY COUNSEL

9

/s/ Daniel Cederborg
Daniel Cederborg
Attorney for Defendants

10
11
12
13

I, Alison Hardy, attest that Dan Cederborg signed this document on September 24, 2018.

14
15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

October 3, 2018

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM