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)
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?