Bucheit v. Dennis et al

Filing 334

ORDER re Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on February 4, 2013. (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 JONATHAN B. BUCKHEIT, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES. v. TONY DENNIS, et al., Defendant. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.: 3:09-cv-05000-JCS 12 13 On January 3, 2013, this Court issued an Order Granting County of San Mateo’s Motion 14 for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Dkt. No. 327. Pursuant to this Court’s 15 directive, the County filed an additional declaration with time records so the Court may determine 16 whether the time spent was reasonable. See Dkt. No. 328. Plaintiff has filed objections to the 17 County’s declaration. See Dkt. No. 332. Upon review of the evidence and in consideration of 18 Plaintiff’s objections, the Court reduces the County’s request for attorneys’ fees for the reasons 19 described below and grants the County’s request for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $145,434.00. 20 A. Admissibility of the Declaration of Brian Wong 21 Plaintiff’s first objection to the County’s time records is that Declaration of Brian Wong 22 does not substantially comply with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, and is therefore 23 inadmissible evidence. Section 1746 allows unsworn declarations to be treated with “like force 24 and effect” as sworn declarations so long as the writing, if executed in the United States, 25 substantially complies with the following language: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under 26 penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” 28 27 U.S.C. § 1746(1). The Declaration of Brian Wong contains the following language: “I declare 28 1 under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and 2 correct. Executed this 10th day of January, 2013, at Redwood City, California.” Wong Decl. ¶ 3. 3 Plaintiff contends the foregoing language does not substantially comply with § 1746 because Mr. Wong included the words “under the laws of the State of Carlifornia,” and thereby 5 limits the scope of his declaration of truthfulness. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Wong therefore cannot 6 be prosecuted under federal law if the information contained within his declaration is incorrect. 7 The Court disagrees. The Declaration of Brian Wong substantially complies with the language of 8 § 1746, thus Mr. Wong will be subject to perjury charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 if the 9 information is not true. Dickinson v. Wainwright, 626 F.2d 1184, 1186 (5th Cir. 1980) (“One 10 who subscribes to a false statement under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 1746 may be 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 4 charged with perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, just as if the statement were made under oath.”). 12 The Declaration of Brian Wong is therefore admissible evidence of the time records. 13 B. Reasonableness of Hours 14 Plaintiff also objects on the basis that the time records are blocked billed, not reduced for 15 duplicative or unnecessary hours in consideration of the exercise of billing judgment, and/or 16 contain redacted or vague descriptions of the tasks performed. The County’s time records are in 17 the form of a twenty-seven page spreadsheet in Attachment A to the Declaration of Brian Wong. 18 The spreadsheet notes each attorney and paralegal who worked on the case, and contains an entry 19 noting how many hours they worked on the case each day with a description of the task(s) 20 performed. 21 Plaintiff also submitted a spreadsheet of the County’s time records with the addition of 22 specific objections to certain time entries. See Declaration of Amitai Schwartz in Opposition to 23 Order Establishing Reasonable Fee Amount. The objections are noted by the letters “a” to “e” on 24 the right-hand side of each time entry. The letter “a” means Plaintiff objects on the basis that the 25 time is not properly related to this case because it covers the factual innocence proceeding or 26 juvenile court proceeding; “b” means Plaintiff objects on the basis that the entry is block billed; 27 “c” means the time is facially excessive, redundant or duplicative; “d” means the entry is redacted 28 2 1 and therefore th Court can d he nnot determin whether t time is u ne the unreasonable and “e” me e; eans the 2 entr is vague and therefore the Court cannot deter ry a e c rmine whethe the time is unreasonab Id. ¶ 5. er ble. 3 Upon re eview of Pla aintiff’s objec ctions to eac specific en ch ntry, the Cou reduces t total urt the 4 num mber of hour by those hours spent in connection with the fa rs h n actual innoce ence or juven court nile 5 pro oceedings, th hose hours co orresponding to a redact ed descriptio of the tas performe as well g on sks ed, 6 as the hours wh do not have an adeq t hich h quate descrip ption of any specific task Thus, the total k. 7 num mber of attor rney hours will be reduc by 34.25 hours, and t total num w ced the mber of para alegal hours 8 wil be reduced by one hou The Cour declines to reduce the number of h ll d ur. rt o hours to acco ount for the 9 Cou unty’s block billing, as the Court wa able to det k t as termine that the total am t mount of hou were urs reasonable for the tasks des t scribed. The Court also overrules Pl e laintiff’s obj jections on g grounds that 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 t sive. the hours spent were excess 1 12 C. 13 In their Motion, the County reque C ested attorne eys’ fees in th amount of $152,041.50 This was he f 0. 14 calc culated at 773.35 hours at $190 per att t torney hour, and 51.05 ho at $100 per paralega hour. The ours al 15 Cou has alread found thes billing rate to be reaso urt dy se es onable. See D No. 327 For the rea Dkt. 7. asons 16 disc cussed above the Court subtracts one paralegal ho and 34.25 attorney ho e, s our 5 ours. Thus, th total he 17 num mber of attorn hours is now 739.10 and the total number of p ney l paralegal hou is 50.05. Billed at the urs 18 rate of $190 an $100 per hour, respecti es nd h ively, the fin calculation of attorney fees is $14 nal n ys’ 45,434.00. 19 Acc cordingly, the County’s Motion for At M ttorneys’ Fee is granted in the amoun of $145,43 es nt 34.00. 20 21 Final Calcu ulation of At ttorneys’ Fe ees IT IS SO ORDERE O ED. Dat Februar 1, 2013 ted: ry 22 ___ __________ ___________ ___ Jos seph C. Sper ro Un nited States M Magistrate Ju udge 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plainti also objec to Brian Wong’s ten hours on 8/0 iff cts 05/10 and se even hours o 8/05/10 on spe preparing the motion to dismiss because the m ent g b motion to dismiss had be filed prior to that een day The Court infers, how y. t wever, that Brian Wong’s hours were spent prepa B s e aring the rep brief to ply the motion to dismiss, whic was filed on 8/6/10, a therefore does not su d ch and e ubtract these hours. See e Dkt No. 63. t. 3

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?