Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 4029

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/28/2011 re 4026 ORDERING that upon the parties' Stipulation, the Defendants agree to pay Plaintiffs' counsel $110,905.88 in fees plus costs of $484.30 within 45 days of the signing of this Order. On the 46th day following the entry of this Order, interest on any unpaid amount will begin to accrue at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. 1961. The parties further agree to stay resolution of the 2010 rate for work performed by paralegal and litigation assistants until final resolution of the 2010 rates litigation in Armstrong v. Brown.(Duong, D)

1 MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
ERNEST GALVAN – 196065
2 LISA ELLS – 243657
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
3 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1823
4 Telephone: [phone]

DONALD SPECTER – 083925
STEVEN FAMA – 099641
PRISON LAW OFFICE
1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, California 94710-1916
Telephone: [phone]

5 JEFFREY L. BORNSTEIN – 099358
EDWARD P. SANGSTER – 121041
6 RAYMOND E. LOUGHREY – 194363
K&L GATES LLP
7 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94111-5994
8 Telephone: [phone]

WARREN E. GEORGE – 053588
BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, California 94111-4067
Telephone: [phone]

9 CLAUDIA CENTER – 158255
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY –
10 EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER
600 Harrison Street, Suite 120
11 San Francisco, California 94107-1389
Telephone: [phone]
12
13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18 RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

19
20

v.

21 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
22
23

Defendants.

Case No. Civ S 90-0520 LKK_JFM
STIPULATION AND ORDER
RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010
DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS AND
STAYING RESOLUTION OF
PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION
ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE
PENDING RESOLUTION OF FEES
PROCEEDINGS IN ARMSTRONG V.
BROWN

24
25
26
27
28
[510727-3]

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS
AND STAYING RESOLUTION OF PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE

1 Plaintiffs and Defendants STIPULATE as follows:
2

1.

Pursuant to the Coleman Periodic Fees Order, “Plaintiffs will file a yearly

3 motion to compel payment of disputed items, if necessary, not later than sixty (60) days
4 after the parties meet and confer with respect to the statement covering the fourth quarter
5 of each year.” March 19, 1996 Stipulation and Order for Periodic Collection of Attorneys’
6 Fees and Costs.
7

2.

Apart from the fees and costs related to the Three-Judge Court proceedings

8 and related Supreme Court appeal, which the parties are separately resolving pursuant to
9 the terms of this Court’s June 16, 2011 order (Docket No. 4023), the four categories of
10 disputed items from 2010 that have not already been resolved through the periodic fees
11 process are: (1) Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ fees and costs associated with the
12 district court and Ninth Circuit proceedings related to the C5 and C6 units at Salinas
13 Valley State Prison; (2) Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ fees and costs associated with
14 the district court proceedings related to Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ objection to the
15 Special Master’s suicide beds recommendation; (3) Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’
16 fees and costs related to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel disputed attorneys’ fees for calendar
17 year 2009; and (4) Defendants’ refusal to pay more than $82.50 per hour for paralegal and
18 litigation assistant work on the case in 2010.
19

3.

With respect to the first three categories outlined in Paragraph 2 of this

20 stipulation, the parties hereby resolve these formerly disputed fees and costs by agreeing
21 that Defendants will pay Plaintiffs $110,905.88 in fees plus costs of $484.30 for the work
22 performed.
23

4.

With respect to the fourth dispute outlined in Paragraph 2 herein, the parties

24 hereby agree to stay resolution of the rate for work performed on this case in 2010 by
25 paralegals and litigation assistants pending resolution of the parties’ related litigation on
26 this issue in Armstrong v. Brown, C94 2307 CW (N.D. Cal.). The parties have fully
27 briefed the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ 2010 rates with supporting evidence in that case,
28 and are awaiting an order on the motion.
[510727-3]

1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS
AND STAYING RESOLUTION OF PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE

1

5.

Accordingly, the parties agree to stay resolution of the final rate Defendants

2 will pay paralegals and litigation assistants for work performed in 2010 pending final
3 resolution of the Armstrong fees litigation, including any motions for reconsideration and
4 final resolution of any appeals resulting from the order. In so stipulating, Plaintiffs do not
5 waive and will enforce their right to interest in accordance with the provisions set forth in
6 the Coleman Periodic Fees order. Nothing in this stipulation may be deemed a waiver or
7 concession of any party’s legal arguments regarding this issue.
8

6.

If the requested stay is granted, the parties will meet and confer regarding the

9 2010 litigation assistant and paralegal rate issues within 30 days after the Armstrong
10 court’s ruling regarding 2010 rates becomes final. If the parties are still unable to resolve
11 this issue, Plaintiffs will file a motion to compel within 60 days of the completion of the
12 meet and confer.
13

WHEREFORE, Defendants agree to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $110,905.88 in fees

14 plus costs of $484.30 within 45 days of the signing of this Order. On the 46th day
15 following the entry of this Order, interest on any unpaid amount will begin to accrue at the
16 rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (i.e., the weekly average 1 year constant maturity
17 Treasury yield for the calendar week preceding the date of the Order). The parties further
18 agree to stay resolution of the 2010 rate for work performed by paralegal and litigation
19 assistants until final resolution of the 2010 rates litigation in Armstrong v. Brown.
20

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

21 Dated: June 23, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

22

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

23

By: /s/ Lisa Ells
Lisa Ells
Attorneys for Coleman Plaintiffs

24
25

Dated: June __, 2011

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

26
27
28
[510727-3]

By:
Debbie Vorous, Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Coleman Defendants
2

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS
AND STAYING RESOLUTION OF PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE

1 IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3 Dated: June 28, 2011.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[510727-3]

3

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS
AND STAYING RESOLUTION OF PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE