Cleveland v. Curry et al

Filing 227

ORDER re 220 MOTION for Attorney Fees Motion for Fees with Declaration of Counsel showing Hours, Expenses & Costs filed by Kenneth Trask, Demetrius Huff, Desmond Jones, Robert Morris, Ivan Vernord Cleveland. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on January 27, 2014. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
IVAN VERNORD CLEVELAND, et al.,

8

Case No. 07-cv-02809-NJV

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
BEN CURRY, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND ORDERING
FURTHER BRIEFING
Re: Dkt. No. 220

12
13

Plaintiffs having prevailed in this action, their counsel has moved for an award of

14
15

attorneys’ fees. See Doc. No. 220. Before deciding the motion for attorneys’ fees, the court

16

requires further information:
First, the court will award any attorneys’ fees based on the provisions of the Prison

17
18

Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 18 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3). Both parties agree that the

19

applicable PLRA rate in this district is $165, 150% of the current CJA compensation rates. See 42

20

U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(1). While the current CJA rate went into effect in

21

September 2013, the rate has varied since 2008, when counsel appeared in this case.1 The parties

22

may submit additional briefs (not to exceed 3 pages) addressing whether the court should apply a

23

uniform rate of $165 to all hours billed, or whether work should be compensated at the rate

24

applicable when it was performed.
Second, the court finds that the declaration submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, without any

25
26

supporting time-keeping records, is insufficient. See In re Washington Public Power Supply

27
28

1

See http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/compensationrates

System Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1305-06 (9th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted); see also 18 U.S.C.

2

§ 3006A(d)(5) (“Each claim shall be supported by a sworn written statement specifying the time

3

expended, services rendered, and expenses incurred while the case was pending . . . and the

4

compensation and reimbursement applied for or received in the same case from any other

5

source”). Plaintiffs’ counsel shall submit a spreadsheet detailing the date and time he spent on any

6

given day, and describe what tasks he performed, succinctly. The narrative form that counsel used

7

in his motion is not easy to follow or understand, and contains numerous qualifiers, indecipherable

8

abbreviations, asterisks, and question marks. See Doc. No. 220; see also Doc. No. 226. Counsel

9

also should submit whatever records he has to substantiate his request for fees. If counsel argues

10

that he is entitled to different rates depending on the time period in which he performed the work,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

he shall make clear what rates apply to each entry.

12

Third, to the extent counsel seeks to recover fees for work performed by others, he must

13

provide declarations from those individuals regarding the time they spent on the case. See Muniz

14

v. United Parcel Service, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24189, *15-*17 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2013) (district

15

court erred in allowing recovery of paralegal fees listed in the declaration of attorney in fee

16

application because declaration was hearsay to the extent it purported to list hours worked by

17

paralegal). Mssrs. Wozniak and Kaupp provided such declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ reply.

18

See Doc. No. 226. To the extent counsel seeks to recover costs or fees billed by the paralegals

19

mentioned in the reply brief, Counsel shall submit non-hearsay support for the time billed (i.e.,

20

contemporaneous, authenticated, time records).

21

The parties shall file their further briefing no later than 21 days from the date of this order.

22

The court will notify the parties if oral argument is appropriate after it reviews the parties’

23

submissions. Otherwise, it shall take the matter under submission pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2014
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
2