County of Sacramento v. Gorski et al

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PARTY DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/12/15. Cause has been shown to withdraw the reference only for the limited purpose of deciding how the attorne y's fees awarded in Hunter should be allocated amongst the plaintiffs. The Hunter jury awarded each plaintiff nominal damages, but found that Sacramento County had "a longstanding 'practice or custom'" of using excessive forc e against inmates that were incarcerated in Sacramento Mail Jail. (Jury Instruction No. 9, p. 10, ECF No. 183.) In light of this finding, each plaintiff is awarded $98,752.50, half of the $197,505.00 award, since the record does not evince that a different division is appropriate.Since the reference concerning other issues has not been withdrawn, this civil action shall be closed. (cc USBC) (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

IN RE:

No. 2:15-CV-271-GEB-AC

11

GARY GORSKI,

Bank. Action No. 2013-33139

12
13

Debtor,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Adversary Proc. No. 2014-02016

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PARTY DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE

GARY GORSKI; ROBERT HUNTER;
HOWARD ELEY; DOUGLAS WHATLEY,
trustee in bankruptcy for
GARY GORSKI; UNITED SATES OF
AMERICA through the Internal
Revenue Service; COUNTY OF
YOLO; DANIEL KARALASH; STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, FRANCISE TAX
BOARD,
Defendants.

22
23
24

The County of Sacramento moves under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d)

25

for permissive withdrawal from the bankruptcy court of the above

26

referenced adversary proceeding. (Mot. Withdraw Ref. Bankr. Ct.

27

Adversary Proceedings, (“Mot.”) 3:14-16, ECF No. 1.)

28
1

1

Sacramento County argues its motion should be granted

2

because of the relationship between assets involved in attorney

3

Gorski‟s

4

attorney‟s

5

plaintiffs in the above referenced district court civil action,

6

captioned as Hunter v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:06-cv-457-GEB

7

(E.D. Cal. 2013) (hereinafter the “Hunter”). Sacramento County

8

asserts

9

plaintiffs

above
fee

that

referenced
award

under

Gorski,

in

bankruptcy

Hunter.

along
The

42

proceeding

U.S.C.

with

§

1988

co-counsel,

Hunter

and

granted

a

prior
to

represented

plaintiffs

were

two

the

awarded

10

$197,505.00 in attorney‟s fees, which Gorski claimed as property

11

of his estate in the bankruptcy proceedings.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Sacramento County states:
At
a
recent
[bankruptcy]
pre-trial
conference, the parties debated the effect of
the [Hunter] judgment and the section 1988
case law on which parties are entitled to the
[attorney‟s fee] award. One of the issues
raised was that the fee award did not
allocate the award between the successful
plaintiffs . . . [The bankruptcy judge]
opined that [the district judge who ruled on
the attorney‟s fee motion] would be better
suited to address the allocation issue and
suggested that the parties move to withdraw
the referral as it relates to the adversary
proceeding, so that the District Court, and
ideally
[that
judge
who
ruled
on
the
attorney‟s fee motion], could address the
allocation.
(Mot. 2:12-20.)
Sacramento

County

argues

“[a]s,

per

[the

bankruptcy

24

court‟s] observations, [that] the interpretation of [the district

25

court‟s attorney‟s fee] order would be better done by [the judge

26

who issued the order], it appears. . . judicial economy . . . and

27

. . . economical use of the parties‟ resources . . . favor

28

[permissive] withdrawal.” (Mot. 3:8-12.)
2

1

“The district court may withdraw . . . any case or

2

proceeding referred [to the bankruptcy court] on its motion or on

3

timely motion of a party, for cause shown.” Sec. Farms v. Int‟l

4

Broth. Of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d

5

999, 1008 (9th Cir. 1997) (alterations in original) (quoting 28

6

U.S.C.

7

judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of

8

bankruptcy administration, the prevention of forum shopping, and

9

other related factors.” Id. (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4

10

§

157(d)).

Good

cause

includes

“the

efficient

use

of

F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir. 1993).

11

Cause has been shown to withdraw the reference only for

12

the limited purpose of deciding how the attorney‟s fees awarded

13

in Hunter should be allocated amongst the plaintiffs.

14

jury

15

Sacramento County had “a longstanding „practice or custom‟” of

16

using excessive force against inmates that were incarcerated in

17

Sacramento Mail Jail. (Jury Instruction No. 9, p. 10, ECF No.

18

183.)

19

$98,752.50, half of the $197,505.00 award, since the record does

20

not evince that a different division is appropriate.

awarded

21

In

each

light

of

plaintiff

this

nominal

finding,

damages,

each

but

plaintiff

The Hunter
found

is

that

awarded

Since the reference concerning other issues has not

22

been withdrawn, this civil action shall be closed.

23

Dated:

March 12, 2015

24
25
26
27
28
3