Valdivia, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 1607

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/29/10 ORDERING that the deadline for any motion regarding Pltf's counsel's fees incurred in opposing the appeal of the 3/26/09 Order shall be sixty days after the expiration of the period to file a notice of appeal or writ of certiorari. (Owen, K)

Valdivia, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Doc. 1607

1 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP GEOFFREY THOMAS HOLTZ ­ 191370 2 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4067 3 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 4 5 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTER ­ 83925 6 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710-1916 7 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 8 ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP 9 MICHAEL W. BIEN ­ 096891 HOLLY M. BALDWIN ­ 191317 10 ERNEST GALVAN ­ 196065 11 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 12 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 14 15 16 17 18 JERRY VALDIVIA, et al., 19 20 21 vs. Plaintiffs, Case No. Civ. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING TIMING FOR FILING A MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR APPEAL OF THE ORDER RELATED TO PROPOSITION 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants.

[411069-2]

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING TIMING FOR FILING A MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR APPEAL OF THE ORDER RELATED TO PROPOSITION 9 - CASE NO. CIV. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3

WHEREAS on November 14, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce the Injunction; WHEREAS on February 6, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Modify the Injunction; WHEREAS Defendants appealed this Court's March 26, 2009 Order granting Plaintiffs'

4 Motion to Enforce the Injunction and denying Defendants' Motion to Modify the Injunction; 5 WHEREAS on March 25, 2010 the Ninth Circuit remanded the Order to the District Court

6 for further proceedings; 7 WHEREAS on September 22, 2010 the Ninth Circuit issued the mandate on the March

8 25, 2010 Order; 9 WHEREAS on September 28, 2010 the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiffs' unopposed

10 Motion to Transfer Fees and Expenses to District Court; and 11 WHEREAS proceedings for which the March 26, 2009 Order was remanded have not yet

12 been concluded; 13 The parties, by and through counsel, stipulate that the deadline for any motion regarding

14 Plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses incurred in opposing the appeal of the March 26, 2009 15 Order ("fee motion") shall be sixty days after the expiration of the period to file a notice of 16 appeal or writ of certiorari of any order that completely resolves the issues sought to be 17 adjudicated in Plaintiffs' November 14, 2008 Motion to Enforce the Injunction and Defendants' 18 February 6, 2009 Motion to Modify the Injunction provided that neither party seeks timely 19 appellate review of the order. In the event that a writ of certiorari is filed from such an order and 20 denied, Plaintiffs shall have sixty days from the Supreme Court's denial of a party's writ of 21 certiorari to file their fee motion. This stipulation concerns only the deadline for filing. Nothing 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1
[411069-2]

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING TIMING FOR FILING A MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR APPEAL OF THE ORDER RELATED TO PROPOSITION 9 - CASE NO. CIV. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH

1 in this stipulation constitutes a waiver of any basis for entitlement to fees and costs or any 2 defenses thereto. Nothing in this Stipulation prevents filing of a fees and costs motion earlier 3 than the deadline. 4 5 6 7 Dated: October 28, 2010 8 9 10 11 Dated: October 28, 2010 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Dated: October 29, 2010. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
[411069-2]

IT IS SO STIPULATED. Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Renju P. Jacobs Renju P. Jacobs Attorneys for Defendants ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP By: /s/ Maria V. Morris Maria V. Morris Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IT IS SO ORDERED.

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING TIMING FOR FILING A MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES FOR APPEAL OF THE ORDER RELATED TO PROPOSITION 9 - CASE NO. CIV. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH