L.H. et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 641

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/11/2011 ORDERING that the hearing re 617 Motion to Compel 2010 Rates currently set for 7/18/2011 is VACATED. The court will delay decision on the pending motion until a decision is issued on the matter in Armstrong. When a decision on the matter is issued in Armstrong, Pltfs SHALL re-notice the motion to compel fees for hearing in this court. If no decision is issued before 8/31/2011, Pltfs SHALL re-notice the motion to compel fees for hearing in this court. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

L.H., A.Z., D.K., and D.R.,
on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly
situated juvenile parolees
in California,

14

NO. CIV. S-06-2042 LKK/GGH
NO. CIV. S-94-0671 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

13
v.

16

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,
Governor, State of
California, et al,

17

Defendants.

15

/
18

JERRY VALDIVIA, et al,
O R D E R
Plaintiffs,

19
20

v.

22

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.,
Governor, State of
California, et al.,

23

Defendants.

21

/
24
25
26

A hearing on plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 2010 Rates, ECF No.
617, is scheduled for hearing on July 18, 2011.
1

In the motion,

1

plaintiffs seek the court’s approval of an increase in the hourly

2

rates for work performed in 2010. As noted in the parties’ papers,

3

a similar motion by plaintiffs was submitted to the Northern

4

District of California in Armstrong v. Brown, No. 94-2307.

5

motion is currently under submission. Plaintiffs proposed that the

6

dispute in this case be resolved according to the court’s ruling

7

in Armstrong, but defendants did not stipulate.

8

Brown, 90-0520, the parties have stipulated “to stay resolution of

9

the rate for work performed in this case in 2010. . . pending

10

resolution of the parties’ related litigation on this issue in

11

Armstrong v. Brown.” See Stipulation and Order, ECF No. 4029, June

12

28, 2011.

In

That

Coleman v.

13

Although the parties have not stipulated to stay this issue

14

in this case, the court finds it appropriate to delay decision on

15

plaintiffs’

16

However,

17

plaintiffs SHALL re-notice the pending motion to compel fees for

18

hearing.

19

[1]

if

motion
no

until

decision

a
is

decision
issued

is

issued

before

in

August

Armstrong.
31,

2011,

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:
The hearing currently scheduled for July 18, 2011 is
VACATED.

20
[2]

21

The court will delay decision on the pending motion
until a decision is issued on the matter in Armstrong.

22
[3]

23

When a decision on the matter is issued in Armstrong,

24

plaintiffs SHALL re-notice the motion to compel fees for

25

hearing in this court.

26

////
2

1

[4]

If

no

decision

is

issued

before

August

31,

2011,

2

plaintiffs SHALL re-notice the motion to compel fees for

3

hearing in this court.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: July 11, 2011.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3