Armstrong, et al v. Davis, et al

Filing 1856

ORDER Granting 1854 Confirming Undisputed California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Fourth Quarter of 2010, and Confirming Resolution of Certain Attorney's Fees and Costs Incurred on Appeal Proposed Order, filed by John Armstrong. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/9/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2011)

Download PDF
Armstrong, et al v. Brown, et al Doc. 1856 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PRISON LAW OFFICE DONALD SPECTER 83925 SARA NORMAN 189536 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710-1916 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Facsimile: (510) 280-2704 DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION & DEFENSE FUND, INC. LINDA KILB 136101 2212 Sixth Street Berkeley, California 94710-2219 Telephone: (510) 644-2555 Facsimile: (510) 841-8645 Attorneys for Plaintiffs BINGHAM McCUTCHEN WARREN E. GEORGE 53588 Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111-4066 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP MICHAEL W. BIEN 096891 ERNEST GALVAN 196065 GAY CROSTHWAIT GRUNFELD 121944 HOLLY M. BALDWIN 191317 315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, California 94104-1823 Telephone: (415) 433-6830 Facsimile: (415) 433-7104 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [481484-1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. Case No. C94 2307 CW ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2010, AND CONFIRMING RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS INCURRED ON APPEAL On March 26, 1997, the District Court established procedures by which Plaintiffs are to collect periodic attorneys' fees and costs in this case in connection with their work monitoring Defendants' compliance with the Court's Orders and collecting fees. Pursuant to these procedures, on January 26, 2011 Plaintiffs served on Defendants their Fourth Quarterly Statement for 2010, by overnight delivery. The parties completed their meet- [PROPOSED] ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED CDCR ATTORNEY'S FEES & COSTS FOR FOURTH QUARTER 2010, & CONFIRMING RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN ATTORNEY'S FEES & COSTS INCURRED ON APPEAL, CASE NO. C94 2307 CW Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and-confer process on March 3, 2011 as to the number of hours and costs incurred, but not as to Plaintiffs' claim to 2010 hourly rates. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Re Procedure for Resolving Attorney's Fees Incurred on Appeal (Docket No. 1827, entered January 19, 2011), on March 3, 2011 the parties also met and conferred regarding Plaintiffs' claims to fees and expenses incurred in Ninth Circuit Case No. 09-17144, which were transferred to this Court. As a result of the March 3, 2011 agreement, the parties agree to the following: The parties agree to the payment of $624,143.97 for undisputed fees and costs incurred during the Fourth Quarter of 2010, for monitoring and fee collection activities in the California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation Division of Adult Operations and Adult Programs (CDCR AOAP) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by the parties to settle these claims. Remaining in dispute is the difference between Plaintiffs' 2008 and 2010 rates for the undisputed hours incurred in Quarter Four of 2010, also reflected on Exhibit A. The parties agree to the payment of $197,340.35 for undisputed fees and costs incurred during the Fourth Quarter of 2010, for monitoring and fee collection activities in the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by the parties to settle these claims. Remaining in dispute is the difference between Plaintiffs' 2008 and 2010 rates for the undisputed hours incurred in Quarter Four of 2010, also reflected on Exhibit B. The parties agree to the payment of $49,025.00 for undisputed fees and costs incurred during the Fourth Quarter of 2010, for monitoring and fee collection activities in the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by the parties to settle these claims. Remaining in dispute is the difference between Plaintiffs' 2008 and 2010 rates for the undisputed hours incurred in Quarter Four of 2010, also reflected on Exhibit C. 2 [481484-1] [PROPOSED] ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED CDCR ATTORNEY'S FEES & COSTS FOR FOURTH QUARTER 2010, & CONFIRMING RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN ATTORNEY'S FEES & COSTS INCURRED ON APPEAL, CASE NO. C94 2307 CW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The parties agree to the payment of $250,000.00 for the resolution of Plaintiffs' claims for Ninth Cir. Case No. 09-17144. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amounts set forth above are due and collectable as of forty-five days from the date of entry of this Order. Interest on these fees and costs will run from February 28, 2011, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. 1961. 3/09/2011 DATED: _______________ THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Jay C. Russell Jay C. Russell Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants DATED: March 4, 2011 /s/ Holly M. Baldwin Holly M. Baldwin Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATED: March 4, 2011 3 [481484-1] [PROPOSED] ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED CDCR ATTORNEY'S FEES & COSTS FOR FOURTH QUARTER 2010, & CONFIRMING RESOLUTION OF CERTAIN ATTORNEY'S FEES & COSTS INCURRED ON APPEAL, CASE NO. C94 2307 CW

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?