Armstrong, et al v. Davis, et al

Filing 1945

ORDER Granting 1943 Proposed Order Confirming Undisputed Attorney's Fees and Costs for the Second Quarter of 2011, with Exhibits A-C. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011)

1 DONALD SPECTER – 083925
REBEKAH EVENSON – 207825
2 PRISON LAW OFFICE
1917 Fifth Street
3 Berkeley, California 94710-1916
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]

WARREN E. GEORGE – 053588
BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, California 94111-4066
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5 LINDA D. KILB – 136101
DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &
6 DEFENSE FUND, INC.
3075 Adeline Street, Suite 201
7 Berkeley, California 94703
Telephone: [phone]
8 Facsimile: [phone]

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
KENNETH M. WALCZAK – 247389
ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP
315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor
San Francisco, California 94104-1823
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14 JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
15
v.

16

17 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.1
18
19

Case No. C94 2307 CW
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONFIRMING
UNDISPUTED CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF
2011
Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[555343-1]

1

The names of Defendants currently serving and their capacities have been substituted
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25.
C94 2307 CW
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2011

1

On March 26, 1997, the District Court established procedures by which Plaintiffs

2 are to collect periodic attorneys’ fees and costs in this case in connection with their work
3 monitoring Defendants’ compliance with the Court’s Orders and collecting fees.
4

Pursuant to these procedures, on July 27, 2011 Plaintiffs served on Defendants their

5 Second Quarterly Statement for 2011, by overnight delivery. The parties completed their
6 meet-and-confer process on September 28, 2011 as to the number of hours and costs
7 incurred on all matters, but not as to Plaintiffs’ claim for payment at 2011 hourly rates.
8

As a result of the September 28, 2011 agreement, the parties agree to the following:

9

The parties agree to the payment of $849,694.14 for undisputed fees and costs

10 incurred during the Second Quarter of 2011, for monitoring and fee collection activities in
11 the California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation Division of Adult Operations
12 and Adult Programs (CDCR AOAP) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are
13 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by
14 the parties to settle these claims. Remaining in dispute is the difference between Plaintiffs’
15 2010 and 2011 rates for the undisputed hours incurred in Quarter Two of 2011, also
16 reflected on Exhibit A.
17

The parties agree to the payment of $450,417.42 for undisputed fees and costs

18 incurred during the Second Quarter of 2011, for monitoring and fee collection activities in
19 the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) portion of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit B are
20 charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts agreed to by
21 the parties to settle these claims. Remaining in dispute is the difference between Plaintiffs’
22 2010 and 2011 rates for the undisputed hours incurred in Quarter Two of 2011, also
23 reflected on Exhibit B.
24

The parties agree to the payment of $62,322.15 for undisputed fees and costs

25 incurred during the Second Quarter of 2011, for monitoring and fee collection activities in
26 the Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) portion of the case. Attached hereto as
27 Exhibit C are charts setting forth the fees and costs claimed by Plaintiffs and the amounts
[555343-1]

28 agreed to by the parties to settle these claims. Remaining in dispute is the difference
C94 2307 CW
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2011

1 between Plaintiffs’ 2010 and 2011 rates for the undisputed hours incurred in Quarter Two
2 of 2011, also reflected on Exhibit C.
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amounts set forth above are due and

4 collectable as of forty-five days from the date of entry of this Order. Interest on these fees
5 and costs will run from August 28, 2011, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C.
6 § 1961.
7
8

10/5/2011
DATED: _____________________

9
10
11

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

14
15 /s/ Scott Feudale

DATED: October 4, 2011

16 Scott J. Feudale
Deputy Attorney General
17 Attorney for Defendants
18
19 /s/ Kenneth Walczak

DATED: September 30, 2011

20 Kenneth M. Walczak
Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP
21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[555343-1]

C94 2307 CW
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER CONFIRMING UNDISPUTED CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER OF 2011