Lira v. Director of Correct, et al

Filing 508

ORDER extending page limitation (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

CHAPMAN, POPIK & WHITE, LLP William B. Chapman, State Bar No. 88079 Mark A. White, State Bar No. 88332 650 California Street, Suite 1900 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff Ernesto Lira

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ERNESTO LIRA,

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) ) MATTHEW CATE, et al. ) ) Defendant. _____________________________________ )

No. C-00-0905 SI (pr) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENDED PAGE LIMITATION FOR THE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES Hearing: Time: Courtroom: Judge: February 19, 2010 9:00 a.m. 10 The Honorable Susan Illston

STIPULATION Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, plaintiff Ernesto Lira and defendant Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) hereby stipulate to an order

22 granting plaintiff administrative relief to extend the page limitation on his reply memorandum in 23 support of his pending motion for award of attorneys fees to and including 22 pages. 24 This page extension is requested by plaintiff Lira, and stipulated to by CDCR, for the 25 following reasons: 26
No. C-00-0905 SI (pr) Stipulation and Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff an Extended Page Limitation for the Reply in Support of His Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1.

Local Rule 7-2(b) limits plaintiff's reply brief to 15 pages in length. Mr. Lira and his

counsel believe that this is insufficient here because of the magnitude and complexity of the fee motion, which covers attorney services by two firms over a period of six years. 2. CDCR's opposition raises challenges to virtually every aspect of plaintiff's fee

motion, including claimed hourly rates, claimed attorney and paralegal hours, reduction for alleged partial success, and availability and awardability of a multiplier. Plaintiff Lira and his counsel believe that they cannot adequately respond to each and all of these challenges without extension of the 15-page limit for his reply. 3. In addition, CDCR's opposition also includes a declaration from a retained fee

auditing expert, which sets forth a detailed critique of the reasonableness of attorney and paralegal hours submitted from both of plaintiff's law firms, and which Mr. Lira and his counsel believe requires some detailed response in reply.

Dated: February 1, 2010

CHAPMAN, POPIK & WHITE LLP By: /s/ Mark A. White

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ernesto Lira EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA By: ______/s/___________________________ Scott J. Feudale Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant

No. C-00-0905 SI (pr) Stipulation and Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff an Extended Page Limitation for the Reply in Support of His Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Dated:

ORDER Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, and good cause having been shown; IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff is granted leave to file his reply memorandum in support of his motion for attorneys fees with an extended page limit up to and including 22 pages.

________________________________________ United States District Judge

No. C-00-0905 SI (pr) Stipulation and Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff an Extended Page Limitation for the Reply in Support of His Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees

3

1 2 3 I, the undersigned, declare: 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Lira v. Director of Corrections, et al. United States District Court, N.D. Cal., Case No. C-00-0905 SI

I hereby certify that on February 1, 2010, I electronically filed the following documents with 5 the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system: 6 7 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF AN EXTENDED PAGE 8 LIMITATION FOR THE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR AWARD OF 9 ATTORNEYS FEES 10 11 I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be 12 accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 14 is true and correct. Executed at San Francisco, California on February 1, 2010. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
No. C-00-0905 SI (pr) Stipulation and Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff an Extended Page Limitation for the Reply in Support of His Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees

______/s/______________ Denise Brasher

4