Nagy v. Group Long Term Disability Plan For Employees of Oracle America, Inc. et al
Filing
152
ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGES 146 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: 123 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS 150 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DAVE NAGY,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Case No. 14-cv-00038-HSG
v.
GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN
FOR EMPLOYEES OF ORACLE
AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION RE: MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 123, 146, 150
On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff Dave Nagy filed a motion for attorney’s fees, requesting
14
an award of $272,710.50. Dkt. No. 123. On September 20, 2016, the Court referred the attorney’s
15
fees motion to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Dkt. No. 124. Briefing was completed on October
16
19, 2017, Dkt. Nos. 128, 137, the hearing was held on January 12, 2017, Dkt. No. 145, and
17
Magistrate Judge Beeler issued the report and recommendation (“R&R”) on January 17, 2017,
18
Dkt. No. 146. Magistrate Judge Beeler recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion for
19
attorney’s fees while reducing the award to $245,305.50. Id. at 2. On January 31, 2017,
20
Defendant objected to the R&R and requested that the fee award be further reduced to $121,215.
21
Dkt. No. 149. On February 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to strike an exhibit to
22
Defendant’s opposition brief or in the alternative, allow Plaintiff to file a written response of equal
23
length. Dkt. No. 150. On February 10, 2017, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s
24
administrative motion. Dkt. No. 151.
25
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Beeler’s R&R, as well as Defendant’s objection,
26
and finds the R&R correct, well-reasoned and thorough. As for Plaintiff’s administrative motion,
27
the Court construes it as an untimely objection to the R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (14 days
28
1
to object).1
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beeler’s R&R in every respect, and
2
3
therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees, while reducing the award to
4
$245,305.50. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion.
5
Dated: 2/23/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff had until February 14, 2017 to respond to Defendant’s objection to Magistrate Judge
Beeler’s R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (14 days to respond). However, Plaintiff’s
administrative motion cannot fairly be construed as a response to Defendant’s objection.
Compare Dkt. No. 149 with Dkt. No. 150. In fact, Plaintiff’s administrative motion does not even
cite Defendant’s objection. See Dkt. No. 150.
2
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?