Catholic Social Svc, et al v. Orantes, et al

Filing 734

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 8/28/2014 GRANTING IN PART 730 Request for Reconsideration; ORDERING the defendants to pay the Special Master reasonable fees associated with obtaining the 726 Order and this order in the amount of $15,977.00. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
INC., IMMIGRATION PROGRAM,
et al.,

13
14
15
16
17

No. CIV. S-86-1343 LKK/JFM

ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
JEH JOHNSON, Secretary of
Department of Homeland
Security, et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

By order filed August 26, 2013, defendants were ordered to

20

pay the Special Master $5,750.00 for outstanding invoices

21

representing 92 appeals and “reasonable fees and costs” incurred

22

by the Special Master in securing that order.

23

26, 2013 (ECF No. 726).

24

filed a request for reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of

25

$26,475 (ECF No. 727).

26

request and entered an order directing defendants to pay the

27

Special Master reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of

Order filed August

On July 8, 2014, the Special Master

On July 22, 2014, the court granted the

28
1

1

$26,475 (ECF No. 729).

2

response to the Special Master’s request and a request for

3

reconsideration of the court’s July 22, 2014 order (ECF No. 730).

4

By order filed July 25, 2014, the Special Master was granted ten

5

days to file a response to defendants’ request for

6

reconsideration (ECF No. 731).

7

Master filed his response (ECF No. 732).

8
9

On July 24, 2014, defendants filed a

On August 1, 2014, the Special

The dispute at bar stems from defendants’ failure to pay
their share of the cost of 92 appeals adjudicated by the Special

10

Master pursuant to the settlement agreement in this case.

11

settlement agreement in this case makes specific provision for

12

the Special Master’s compensation for adjudicating such appeals.

13

See Settlement Agreement at ¶ 9.

14

defendants are in agreement that said provision does not govern

15

the instant dispute.

16

The

The Special Master and

The court has already determined that the Special Master is

17

entitled to reasonable fees and costs associated with obtaining

18

the August 26, 2013 order.

19

No. 726).

20

to a reasonable fee.

21

Defendants do not object to the hours spent by the Special Master

22

on this dispute.

23

rate is proper.

See Order filed August 26, 2013 (ECF

Defendants concede that the Special Master is entitled
Defs.’ Resp. (ECF No. 730) at 9.

See id. at 7.

The sole dispute is what hourly

24

The Special Master seeks compensation at a rate of $500 per

25

hour, which he represents is “far below his normal market rate.”

26

Special Master’s Resp. (ECF No. 732) at 1.

27

should be compensated at the statutory rate provided in the Equal

28

Access to Justice Act, 8 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA), which they
2

Defendants contend he

1

contend is “applied in most immigration related fee awards.”

2

Defs. Resp. (ECF No. 730) at 3.

3

the court’s authority to award fees arises its’ “inherent power

4

to administer settlement between the parties” pursuant to Fed.

5

Civ. P. 53 and the dispute at bar does not fall within the ambit

6

of EAJA.

The Special Master argues that

7

The court agrees that the authority to award attorneys’ fees

8

to the Special Master in the present dispute arises from Rule 53.

9

In particular, Rule 53(g)(1) provides that

10

Before or after judgment, the court must fix
the master’s compensation on the basis and
terms stated in the appointing order, but the
court may set a new basis and terms after
giving notice and an opportunity to be heard.

11
12
13
14

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(g)(1).
The dispute at bar requires an additional basis for

15
16

compensating the Special Master, and the parties have been given

17

notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter.

18

above, the settlement agreement does not cover hourly rates for

19

the Special Master in the circumstance at bar.

20

therefore, determine a reasonable hourly rate for this matter.

21

In making this determination, the court takes its guidance from

22

the requirement for fee awards under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 that the

23

reasonable hourly rate be “calculated according to the prevailing

24

market rates in the relevant community.”

25

U.S. 886, 895 (1984).

26

community of Special Masters who serve this court.

27

this court has one Special Master who is compensated at an hourly

28

rate.

As noted

The court must,

Blum v. Stenson, 465

Here, the relevant community is the
Currently,

In Coleman v. Brown, 90-0520 LKK/DAD, the Special Master
3

1

is compensated at an hourly rate of $260.00 hour.1

2

finds that $260.00 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for Mr.

3

Boswell’s work on the instant fee petition.

4

The court

There being no dispute over the number of hours claimed by

5

the Special Master, which total 61.45, defendants will be ordered

6

to pay the Special Master reasonable fees associated with

7

obtaining the August 26, 2013 order and this order in the amount

8

of $15,977.00.

9

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10
11

1.

Defendants’ July 24, 2014 motion for reconsideration of

this court’s July 22, 2014 order is granted in part;

12

2.

Defendants are ordered to pay the Special Master

13

reasonable fees associated with obtaining the August 26, 2013

14

order and this order in the amount of $15,977.00.

15

DATED:

August 28, 2014.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The services of the Special Master in Valdivia v. Brown, No. 94-0671 ended
in 2013, when that case was terminated. Prior to termination, the Special
Master in Valdivia was compensated at an hourly rate of $200.00 per hour. See
ECF No. 1858-1.

4