Micah Jessop et al v. City of Fresno et al

Filing 46

ORDER Granting Defendant City of Fresno's Request for $259.00 in Attorney Fees signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/17/2016. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICAH JESSOP, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

Case No. 1:15-cv-00316-DAD-SAB
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT CITY
OF FRESNO’S REQUEST FOR $259.00 IN
ATTORNEY’S FEES

v.

14

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

15

(ECF Nos. 41, 42)

Defendants.

16
17

On June 22, 2016, Defendant City of Fresno (“Defendant Fresno”) filed a motion to

18 compel further responses to special interrogatories and to requests for production of documents
19 from Plaintiffs Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian (“Plaintiffs”). (ECF No. 32.) Defendant
20 Fresno also requested monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,220.00, which represented the fees
21 and costs associated with bringing and presenting the motion to compel. (ECF No. 32.) On
22 August 4, 2016, the Court granted in part Defendant Fresno’s motion to compel and granted in
23 part the request for attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 41.) The Court found that Plaintiffs should pay
24 Defendant Fresno for the additional time that Defendant Fresno was required to spend on the
25 motion due to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s initial failure to meet and confer. Therefore, the Court found
26 that Plaintiffs should pay Defendant Fresno for the time that it took and the amount of expenses
27 that were required to complete the July 13, 2016 reply and July 13, 2016 251(d) declaration.
28

On August 5, 2016, Defendant Fresno’s counsel, Allen Christiansen, submitted a

1

1 declaration pursuant to the Court’s August 4, 2016 order and in support of Defendant Fresno’s
2 request for attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.
Trial courts have broad discretion in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees.

3

4 Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit and California
5 both utilize the “lodestar” approach for assessing reasonable attorneys’ fees, where the number
6 of hours reasonably expended is multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Gonzalez v. City of
7 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (federal law); Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.,
8 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (federal law); Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1132
9 (2001) (California law). The court then may adjust the lodestar upward or downward based upon
10 a variety of factors. Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1202.
In his August 5, 2016 declaration, Mr. Christiansen declares that his billing rate for the

11

12 City of Fresno is a contract rate of $185.00 per hour. (Christiansen August 5, 2016 Decl. at ¶ 3.)
13 Mr. Christiansen also declares that he spent 1.4 hours of time preparing the July 13, 2016 reply
14 and July 13, 2016 251(d) declaration. (Christiansen August 5, 2016 Decl. at ¶ 3.) Therefore, Mr.
15 Christiansen requests $259.00 in sanctions against Plaintiffs. The Court finds that the $259.00 in
16 fees described in Mr. Christiansen’s declaration is reasonable and Plaintiffs shall pay Defendant
17 Fresno $259.00 in expenses associated with the July 13, 2016 reply and 251(d) declaration.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall pay the total amount of

18

19 $259.00 in attorney’s fees to Defendant Fresno made payable to “Law Offices of Ferguson, Praet
20 & Sherman, APC” within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order.
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated:

August 17, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2