O'Campo v. Ghoman et al

Filing 95

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/16/17 ORDERING that the 2/17/17 hearing of Plaintiff's MOTION 92 for Default Judgment is CONTINUED to 3/24/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. On or before 3/10/17, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DIMAS O’CAMPO, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:08-cv-1624 KJM DB PS Plaintiff, v. RAGHBIR SINGH GHOMAN, dba QUICK SHOP 2; GHOMAN’S PROPERTIES, LLC, ORDER Defendants. 17 18 On January 17, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment and set the matter for 19 hearing before the undersigned on February 17, 2017. (ECF No. 92.) Plaintiff’s motion seeks, in 20 part, $152,307.30 in attorney’s fees. 21 Plaintiff’s motion, however, does not address how plaintiff arrived at reasonable hourly 22 rates for this district. See Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We have held 23 that in determining a reasonable hourly rate, the district court should be guided by the rate 24 prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, 25 experience, and reputation.”). Nor does plaintiff address why plaintiff should be awarded all the 26 hours expended on this action, given that some of those hours were spent on pleadings for which 27 plaintiff failed to allege standing. See Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2003) 28 (“Hours expended on unrelated, unsuccessful claims should not be included in an award of 1 1 fees.”). 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The February 17, 2017 hearing of plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (ECF No. 92) 4 is continued to March 24, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street, 5 Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned 1; 6 2. On or before March 10, 2017, plaintiff shall file a supplemental memorandum 7 addressing: (1) whether the attorney and paralegal rates plaintiff seeks are reasonable in light of 8 similar awards in cases before the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division; (2) why 9 plaintiff should be compensated for all hours expended in light of pleading defect found in 10 plaintiff’s original complaint; and (3) providing a comparison of the total hours expended, by 11 each attorney and paralegal, prior to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on November 9, 2015, and after the 12 Ninth Circuit’s ruling. 13 DATED: February 16, 2017 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Any party may appear at the hearing telephonically if the party pre-arranges such appearance by contacting Pete Buzo, the courtroom deputy of the undersigned magistrate judge, at (916) 9304128, no later than 48 hours prior to the hearing; a party may not appear telephonically over a cellphone. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?