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