Chelsea, LLC v. Regal Stone, Ltd. et al

Filing 266

ORDER Requiring Supplemental Declarations re: Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 9/10/2010. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2010)

Russo, et al., v. Regal Stone, Ltd. et al

Doc. 266

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ALLEN LORETZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGAL STONE, LTD., HANJIN SHIPPING, CO., LTD., SYNERGY MARITIME, LTD., FLEET MANAGEMENT LTD., and JOHN COTA, In Personam, M/V COSCO BUSAN, their engines, tackle, equipment, appurtenances, freights, and cargo, In Rem, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 07-5800 SC ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS RE: ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On September 3, 2010, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. approved the settlement. ECF No. 264. The Court

At the hearing, the Court

requested billing records for in camera review. Having reviewed the records, the Court determines that it needs more information before it can issue an order regarding attorneys' fees and costs. The Court requires a declaration from

the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy ("CPM") summarizing how the firm arrived at its requested lodestar of $434,392.50. CPM has

submitted to the Court its record of all the time spent in pursuit of the claims of all commercial fishermen. It is not clear to the

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

Court how CPM segregated the time expended in pursuit of the Dungeness crab fishermen's claims. Also, while CPM provided the

Court with a description of its litigation costs, the Court requires an explanation of why those costs were reasonable. The Court requires a declaration from Audet & Partners LLP ("Audet") explaining how it reasonably expended 1955.65 attorney and paralegal hours working on this case. The Court notes that

counsel is expected to exercise "billing judgment," and to exclude from a fee request hours that are "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary." (1983). Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Here, the Court's review of the billing records indicates

that Audet has not excluded any hours from its fee request of $890,185.45. Also, while Audet provided the Court with a

description of its litigation costs, the Court requires a declaration from Audet explaining why those litigation costs were reasonable. The required declarations from CPM and Audet should be sent directly to chambers for in camera review. required to publicly file the declarations. CPM and Audet are not The declarations shall

be due in chambers no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order. calendar. The hearing set for September 17, 2010 is taken off

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

September 10, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2