California Sportfishing Protecting Alliance v. Forever Resorts, LLC et al.

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 6/2/2017 DENYING 25 Second Motion to Approve Settlement. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

v.

No. 2:16-cv-01595-MCE-EFB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FOREVER RESORTS, LLC; LAKE
OROVILLE MARINA, LLC; BILL
HARPER; and REX MAUGHAN,
Defendants.

18

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Settlement Approval, ECF

19

No. 25, under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Cal.

20

Health & Safety Code §§ 25249.5–.13, otherwise known as Proposition 65. California

21

Health and Safety Code § 25249.7(f)(4) requires parties to submit Proposition 65

22

settlements between private parties to the court for approval. For the court to approve

23

the settlement, the court must—among other things—find that “[t]he award of attorney’s

24

fees is reasonable under California law.” Id. § 25249.7(f)(4). The Court previously found

25

a rate of $795 per hour and a total of $67,500 in attorney’s fees to be unreasonable.

26

See Mem. & Order, ECF No. 20, at 4. In this second motion, Plaintiff’s counsel claims to

27

have reduced his rate to $650 per hour for purposes of calculating attorney’s fees. See

28

Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of 2d Mot. for Settlement Approval, ECF No. 26, at 15–16.
1

1

However, Plaintiff still seeks a total of $67,500 in attorney’s fees. See Decl. of Andrew L.

2

Packard, Ex. C, ECF No. 27-3. The fact that Plaintiff’s counsel purports to reduce the

3

hourly rate while increasing the number of hours to reach the same bottom line on the

4

amount of attorney’s fees is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If Plaintiff’s counsel is too obtuse to

5

understand what the court’s intentions are in this matter, Plaintiff’s counsel can expect a

6

long delay in obtaining any attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement Approval,

7

ECF No. 25, is DENIED.1

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this

2