Chavez et al v. County of Santa Clara

Filing 107

Order by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman granting 79 Motion for Attorney Fees. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

BRIAN CHAVEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 15-cv-05277-RMI

v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES ANBD EXPENSES
Re: Dkt. No. 79

13
14

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for

15

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. Having considered the briefing in support of the Motion, responses

16

from class members, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court finds good cause

17

to GRANT the Motion.

18

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), class members were informed about the

19

fee request in the Class Notice, and a full copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

20

Expenses was made available to all class members. Class members were afforded an opportunity to

21

comment or object to the Motion, and this Court held a hearing on the Motion.

22

After review of all briefing and evidence presented, this Court finds and concludes that the

23

agreed-upon award of $1,600,000 is fair and reasonable, as is the agreed-upon compensation of

24

$200,000 to monitor and enforce the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan. In this case, Plaintiffs

25

sought to address deficiencies in medical, mental health, and dental care provided to prisoners in

26

Defendant’s jails, as well as non-mobility disability discrimination faced by the Class members. The

27

Consent Decree does just that. It includes a 46-page Remedial Plan that requires Defendant to

28

implement specific policies, procedures, and practices intended to ensure minimally adequate

1

healthcare and to guarantee that prisoners with non-mobility disabilities receive reasonable

2

accommodations. It also includes a use of force policy and detailed policies governing the use of

3

restrictive housing in Defendant’s jails.

4

To get to this result, Plaintiffs devoted more than three years to litigating this case, meeting,

5

corresponding with, and interviewing prisoners, reviewing and analyzing healthcare records,

6

working with six neutral experts, inspecting the jail facilities, and meeting and negotiating with

7

Defendant. The parties expended considerable time and resources negotiating the terms of the

8

Consent Decree and Remedial Plan.
The fee request reasonably reflects the time and labor required to litigate this matter, and

10

was calculated pursuant to the lodestar method; that is, Plaintiffs’ counsel kept contemporaneous

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

time records that detail all work completed, and to calculate the requested award Plaintiffs multiplied

12

the number of hours actually worked by a reasonable hourly rate. Specter Decl., ¶ 10. Though

13

counsel represented the Plaintiffs without charge, Plaintiffs’ counsel exercised the same billing

14

judgment and discretion accorded to private clients. Specter Decl., ¶ 8; Santamaria Decl. ¶ 4;

15

Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Ultimately, a ‘reasonable’

16

number of hours equals ‘[t]he number of hours . . . [which] could reasonably have been billed to a

17

private client.’”) (citations omitted, alterations in original).

18

Courts have long recognized that the lodestar method of calculating fees is strongly

19

presumed to be reasonable. Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1482 (9th Cir. 1992) (“There is a strong

20

presumption that the lodestar figure is reasonable, and adjustments are to be adopted only in

21

exceptional cases.”); Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996).

22

The agreed upon fee award also fairly reflects the novelty and difficulty of the questions

23

presented, the skill required in litigating this complex case, and the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel

24

litigated this matter on a contingency basis and expended significant hours and out-of-pocket

25

expenses doing so.

26

Accordingly, the request for $1,600,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses and compensation

27

of $200,000 per year for monitoring and enforcement of the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan is

28

approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable, and Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
2

1
2
3

and Expenses is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2019

4
5
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3