Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2236

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting 2207 Plaintiffs' motion re: procedure for submitting attorneys' fee requests arising from three-judge court proceedings. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIANO PLATA, et al., Plaintiffs,

NO. C01-1351 TEH ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION RE: PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING ATTORNEYS' FEE REQUESTS ARISING FROM THREE-JUDGE COURT PROCEEDINGS

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for an order directing

13 Plaintiffs to comply with the periodic fees order in this case in submitting requests for 14 attorneys' fees and costs arising from the related three-judge court proceedings. Having 15 reviewed the parties' written arguments, the Court does not find oral argument to be 16 necessary and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for September 28, 2009. 17 On August 26, 2009, this Court ruled that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable

18 attorneys' fees and costs for work performed before the three-judge court based on the 19 June 13, 2002 Stipulation and Order for Injunctive Relief. Aug. 26, 2009 Order at 1-3. 20 Thus, the only matter to be decided on this motion is whether the Court should clarify that 21 the periodic fees order in this case governs Plaintiffs' fee requests for such work, and that the 22 deadlines for filing requests for attorneys' fees under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and this Court's Civil Local Rules do not apply. Defendants do not dispute the Court's 24 discretion to modify the deadlines under the federal and civil local rules, nor do they present 25 any argument for the Court not to do so. Defendants' only argument is that this Court should 26 deny Plaintiffs' motion because it lacks jurisdiction over fee requests for work before the 27 three-judge court ­ an argument this Court already considered and rejected in its August 26, 28 2009 order.

1

With good cause appearing based on the Court's prior ruling regarding entitlement to

2 fees, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion. The deadlines and requirements of the 3 Plata periodic fees order, and not the deadlines and requirements set forth in Federal Rule of 4 Civil Procedure 54(d) and Civil Local Rules 54-1 through 54-6, shall govern the fee requests 5 at issue.1 However, as previously ordered, "[t]he Court temporarily stays enforcement of all 6 orders to pay attorneys' fees related to proceedings before the three-judge court pending 7 resolution of Defendants' motion to stay, noticed for hearing on October 19, 2009." 8 Sept. 16, 2009 Order at 5. In addition, the Court understands that a similar motion is pending 9 before the district court in Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Case No. Civ. S-90-0520 LKK JFM 10 (E.D. Cal.), and reiterates that "[i]f the Coleman court subsequently issues a ruling

United States District Court

11 inconsistent with this order . . ., then this Court will entertain a motion for leave to file a
For the Northern District of California

12 motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9 and may reconsider its ruling." 13 Aug. 26, 2009 Order at 3 n.3. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: 09/18/09 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 This ruling should not be construed as an opinion that judgment in the three-judge court proceedings is required prior to an award of attorneys' fees and costs, nor that the 28 three-judge court's August 4, 2009 opinion constitutes a judgment. 2
1

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT