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)

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