Martinez De Maldonado v. I.C. System, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING in Full the 20 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING in Part Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/28/2024. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEYSE MARTINEZ DE MALDONADO,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
I.C. SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:23-cv-0186 JLT BAM
ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN
PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
(Docs. 11, 20)

16
17

Deyse Martinez de Maldanado sought to hold I.C. System, Inc., liable for violations of the Fair

18

Debt Collections Practices Act, California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Cal.

19

Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1280, et. seq. (See Doc. 1-3 at 4-7.) Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s offer of

20

judgment, which included a provision for “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount either

21

agreed by the parties or determined by the Court.” (Doc. 9 at 2; see also id. at 6.) Plaintiff now moves

22

for fees and costs. (Doc. 11.)

23

The assigned magistrate judge found the hourly rates requested for work in this action exceeded

24

those typically awarded in the Eastern District and recommended the rates to be reduced to be within

25

the range of reasonable fees in this forum. (Doc. 20 at 6-9.) In addition, the magistrate judge found

26

Plaintiff included clerical tasks, for which fees should not be awarded, in the billing records and

27

recommended the time be deducted from the fee award. (Id. at 9-12.) With the proposed adjustments

28

to the hourly rates and billed time, the magistrate judge recommended fees be awarded in the modified
1

1

amount of $6,522.50. (Id. at 14.) The magistrate judge found a multiplier was not warranted after

2

considering the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526, F.2d 67,

3

69-70 (9th Cir. 1975), and recommended the Court decline to apply a multiplier to the fee award. (Id.

4

at 12-13.) The magistrate judge also found that the requested costs “were reasonably incurred and

5

recoverable,” and recommended costs be awarded in the amount of $592.32. (Id. at 15.)

6

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them any

7

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 20 at 15.) The Court advised the parties that the failure to

8

file objections within this specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. (Id. at 16, citing

9

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed

10

objections, and the time to do so has passed.

11

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

12

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are

13

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

14

1.

The Findings and Recommendations dated March 13, 2024 (Doc. 20) are ADOPTED
in full.

15
16

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (Doc. 11) is GRANTED in part.

17

3.

Plaintiff is AWARDED the modified amount of $7,114.82, including fees in the
amount of $6,522.50 and costs in the amount of $592.32.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 28, 2024

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2