Brown v. Sonoma County Land Company

Filing 115

ORDER DISMISSING STATE LAW CLAIMS AND SETTING A BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 07/07/2022. (rmilc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

JEANETTE BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case Nos. 17-cv-00913, 18-cv-02699-RMI

v.
SONOMA COUNTY LAND COMPANY,
et al.,

ORDER DISMISSING STATE-LAW
CLAIMS; AND, SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF’S
ATTORNEYS’ FEES REQUEST

Defendants.
13
14

For the reasons stated in this court’s Order of April 15, 2022 (see dkt. 108 in Case No. 17-

15

cv-00913RMI; see also dkt. 100 in Case No. 18-cv-02699) there court hereby declines to exercise

16

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Accordingly, those claims are

17

DISMISSED. If Plaintiffs so desire, they are free to file those claims in state court. In light of the

18

dismissal of Plaintiffs’ state-law claims, and given the fact that all equitable issues related to the

19

remaining federal claims have been resolved by written agreement, and given also that all

20

conditions of the agreement have been performed and completed (see Second Supp. Status Rep.

21

(dkt. 106) at 4) (Filed in Case No. 18-cv-02699-RMI), the court finds that there are no outstanding

22

issues to be adjudicated other than the matter of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees.

23

In that regard, the court declines to re-refer the matter to another settlement judge for

24

further settlement proceedings regarding the subject of attorney’s fees. If the Parties so wish, they

25

can either request a further settlement conference with Judge Cousins or they can venture to

26

resolve the matter independently. Failing a stipulated resolution, Plaintiffs’ opening brief on the

27

entitlement to attorney’s fees, their amount, and the justifications therefor shall be due to be filed

28

no later than Monday, August 22, 2022. Defendants’ responsive brief shall be due to be filed no

1

later than Tuesday, September 6, 2022. Plaintiffs’ reply, if they elect to file one, shall be due to be

2

filed no later than Tuesday, September 13, 2022. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to ensure that their

3

opening brief is filed in compliance with this district’s Local Rules regarding motions for

4

attorneys’ fees (such that the motion includes sufficient documentation to allow a reasonableness

5

determination as to the hourly rate and the number of hours expended). See Civ. L.R. 54-5.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 7, 2022

8
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

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
2