K.C., et al v. O'Connell, et al

Filing 165

ORDER REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for the purpose of overseeing the parties' process towards resolving the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred fo r monitoring compliance with the express terms of the parties' settlement agreement and their reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses for the work necessary in this Court and the Ninth Circuit to resolve this motion forfees. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 24, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2015)

Case3:05-cv-04077-MMC Document160 Filed04/17/15 Page1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

AMY BISSON HOLLOWAY, SBN 163731
General Counsel
EDMUNDO AGUILAR, SBN 136142
Assistant General Counsel
TODD M. SMITH, SBN 170798
Assistant General Counsel
PAUL E. LACY, SBN 180140
Deputy General Counsel
AVA YAJIMA, SBN 218008
Deputy General Counsel
California Department of Education
1430 N Street, Suite 5319
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 916-319-0155
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant,
California Department of Education
(Defendant is Public Entity and Exempt from
Filing Fees Pursuant to Gov. Code § 6103.)

DONNA BRORBY
LAW OFFICE OF DONNA BRORBY
315 Hugo Street
San Francisco, California 94122
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 510-841-8645
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ARLENE B. MAYERSON
LARISA M. CUMMINGS
DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION
AND DEFENSE FUND, INC.
3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210
Berkeley, CA 94703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 510-841-8645
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

K.C., by and through Erica C., her guardian, et al., ) Case No. C-05-4077 (MMC)
)
) JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Plaintiff(s),
) & [PROPOSED] ORDER
)
vs.
)
)
Tom Torlakson, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of )
California, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
)

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

22

STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern

23

District of California dated November 1, 2014 and Civil Local Rule 16-9.

24

1. Jurisdiction & Service

25

The Court has ruled that it will exercise its discretionary ancillary jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’

26

attorneys’ fees motion.

27

2. Facts

28

Pursuant to the Court’s order of March 20, 2015, the remaining disputed issue is the amount of
Case No. C-05-4077 (MMC)

1

Joint Case Management
Statement & Proposed Order

Case3:05-cv-04077-MMC Document160 Filed04/17/15 Page2 of 5

1

Plaintiffs’ reasonable monitoring fees. Plaintiffs have set forth their view of the facts that are relevant

2

to the determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees in their motion and supporting

3

memorandum. State Defendants have not yet specified each individual billing entry in which they

4

contend Plaintiffs may not recover fees but will do so in proceedings before the magistrate. State

5

Defendants, however, contend that no fees are awardable for services that were not reasonably

6

necessary to monitor State Defendants’ compliance with the express terms of the settlement agreement,

7

including, but not limited to services that Plaintiffs’ attorneys performed in connection with the pursuit

8

of claims of individuals made to LEAs. Plaintiffs contend that those services were necessary as a part

9

of their monitoring of State Defendants’ compliance with the express terms of the settlement

10

agreement, particularly the provisions concerning targeted verification reviews and State Defendants’

11

complaint resolution system. Additionally, State Defendants contend that Plaintiffs spent more time

12

than was necessary in those activities in which they were monitoring the express terms of the settlement

13

agreement. Plaintiffs contend that their services were necessary as a part of their monitoring of State

14

Defendants’ compliance with the settlement agreement, particularly the provisions concerning targeted

15

verification reviews and State Defendants’ complaint resolution system. Plaintiffs also dispute that the

16

time spent monitoring was excessive.

17

3. Legal Issues

18

State Defendants contend that some of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ work billed as part of the Plaintiffs’

19

“lodestar” is for work that was not reasonably necessary to the monitoring of State Defendants’

20

compliance with the express terms of the settlement agreement in this case and should be disallowed.

21

Plaintiffs contend that all the work for which they seek compensation was reasonably necessary to their

22

monitoring.

23

4. Motions

24

The only motions in this case that have been filed are the Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees

25

and the State Defendants’ request to file a motion (and a motion) for reconsideration. No other motions

26

are anticipated at this time.

27

5. Amendment of Pleadings

28

There will be no amendments of pleadings.
Case No. C-05-4077 (MMC)

2

Joint Case Management
Statement & Proposed Order

Case3:05-cv-04077-MMC Document160 Filed04/17/15 Page3 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

6. Evidence Preservation
The parties have reviewed the guidelines and they have met and conferred.
7. Disclosures
Not applicable.
8. Discovery

6

There has been no discovery taken. Plaintiffs do not intend to take discovery.

7

Given the nature of State Defendants’ dispute that Plaintiffs’ activities were not reasonably

8

necessary to monitor the express terms of the settlement agreement, it will be necessary for State

9

Defendants to undertake discovery regarding those activities.

10
11
12
13
14
15

9. Class Actions
This is not a class action.
10. Related Cases
There is no related case.
11. Relief
Plaintiffs seek $284,963.75, based on a total of 959.10 hours from July 25, 2007 – August 23,

16

2010, plus their reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses for the work necessary in this Court and the

17

Ninth Circuit to resolve this motion for fees.

18

12. Settlement and ADR

19

The parties request that the Court refer the case to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for the

20

purposes of a settlement conference, and, if the parties do not settle, for a report and recommendations

21

on the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees that should be awarded.

22

13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes

23
24
25

____ YES

___x_ NO

14. Other References
This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master or the Judicial

26

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

27

15. Narrowing of Issues

28

The parties may be able to narrow issues in dispute that go to the reasonable amount of
Case No. C-05-4077 (MMC)

3

Joint Case Management
Statement & Proposed Order

Case3:05-cv-04077-MMC Document160 Filed04/17/15 Page4 of 5

1

Plaintiffs’ monitoring fees.

2

16. Expedited Trial Procedure

3

Not applicable.

4

17. Scheduling

5

State Defendants request that this matter NOT be referred to a magistrate judge before their

6

pending motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and the motion for reconsideration, is

7

resolved. If and when the matter is referred, the magistrate judge and the parties will need to schedule

8

discovery, a settlement conference, and other events necessary for the magistrate judge to complete the

9

matters referred to him.

10
11
12
13

18. Trial
Not applicable.
19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-15, the undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs certifies that as of this date,

14

other than the named parties, there is no such interest to report. Plaintiffs have filed the required

15

certification. The defendants are governmental entities or agencies.

16

20. Professional Conduct

17

All attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct

18

for the Northern District of California.

19

21. Other

20
21

DATED: April 17, 2015

/s/ Donna Brorby
DONNA BRORBY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: April 17, 2015

/s/Ava Yajima
PAUL E. LACY
AVA C. YAJIMA
Attorneys for Defendants, California Department of Education

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. C-05-4077 (MMC)

4

Joint Case Management
Statement & Proposed Order

Case3:05-cv-04077-MMC Document160 Filed04/17/15 Page5 of 5

1

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

2

The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER is approved

3

as the Case Management Order for this case and all parties shall comply with its provisions. This matter

4

is referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for the purpose of overseeing the parties’ process

5

towards resolving the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for monitoring

6

compliance with the express terms of the parties’ settlement agreement and their reasonable attorneys’

7

fees and expenses for the work necessary in this Court and the Ninth Circuit to resolve this motion for

8

fees. The Magistrate Judge shall hold a settlement conference(s). If the matter of the amount of

9

reasonable attorneys’ fees is not resolved by settlement, the Magistrate Judge shall give both parties a

10

full opportunity to provide him with all relevant information and he shall prepare a report and

11

recommendations on the reasonable amount of monitoring fees. The parties will be permitted the

12

opportunity to seek de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, based on the evidence

13

that was provided to the Magistrate Judge.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

DATED: April 24, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. C-05-4077 (MMC)

5

Joint Case Management
Statement & Proposed Order