Briggs v. United States of America et al

Filing 168

*** FILED IN ERROR -- REFER TO DOCKET NUMBER 169 *** ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 12, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2010) Modified on 4/12/2010 (whalc1, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JULIUS BRIGGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. / No. C 07-05760 WHA CLASS ACTION ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS In order to properly evaluate whether the requested attorney's fees are "fair, reasonable, and adequate," class counsel are ORDERED to supplement their previously filed declarations as follows. First, no declaration has been filed setting forth Attorney Kathryn Anderson's qualifications, experience, and role in this litigation (see Dkt. No. 148, which sets forth the information counsel must provide to support a motion for attorney's fees and costs). Based upon the spreadsheets filed by class counsel, Attorney Anderson performed various legal tasks in this dispute. The absence of any information about Attorney Anderson is especially troubling given that she bills at a proposed market rate of $768 per hour, which is the same ultra-premium rate as Attorney Visher (Visher Decl. Exh. G at 1819). Second, speaking of the proposed market rate for class counsel, while counsel provided sufficient information (as requested) regarding proposed attorney market rates based upon the Laffey Matrix (adjusted for San Francisco cost-of-living adjustments), this order emphasizes that

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?