Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 579

ORDER re 577 Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs, Notice to Class Members, and a Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/1/16. (napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2016)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6
7

TODD ASHKER, et al.,

C 09-05796 CW
Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS,
NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS, AND A
SCHEDULING ORDER

8
v.

9
10
11

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

On September 1, 2015, the parties reached a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement

15

(“Settlement Agreement”) to resolve this case regarding Defendants’ policies and practices

16

related to gang management and their use of segregated housing, including the Security Housing

17

Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay State Prison. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement

18

Agreement on January 26, 2016. (Dkt. No. 488). The Settlement Agreement provides

19

entitlement to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 424-2, para.

20

55). By this Order, the Court sets forth the notice and approval process concerning an agreement

21

(“Fee Accord”) negotiated by the parties for payment of $4,550,0001 to Plaintiffs for all

22

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the four years of litigation leading to the date the

23

Settlement Agreement was executed on September 1, 2015.

24
25
26
1

27
28

The attorneys' fees in this case are based upon the lodestar method, representing a settled
amount of 20,530.9 hours at the settled rate of $213 per hour, plus non-expert costs of
$176,915.61.
1
[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion re Attorneys’ Fees (C 09-05796 CW)

1
2

The Court has presided over the proceedings in the above-captioned action and has

3

reviewed all the pleadings, records, and papers on file. The Court has reviewed the Unopposed

4

Motion for Approval of Class Settlement Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and has

5
considered the parties’ arguments concerning the settlement of these fees and costs.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Therefore, with good cause appearing, the Court hereby orders as follows:
1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), the Court approves the substance, form and
manner of the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Attorneys’ Fees in Class Action
Regarding SHU Confinement (“Class Notice”) as submitted by the parties. The Court
finds that the Class Notice provides adequate notice concerning the parties’ Fee Accord,
which, if approved, would settle Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs through

13
14
15

September 1, 2015.
2. The Court finds that the proposed method of disseminating the Class Notice meets all due

16

process and other legal requirements, and is the best notice practicable under the

17

circumstances.

18
19

3. Within three days of this Order, the parties are directed to prepare a final version of the
Class Notice, incorporating the dates set forth in this Order.

20
4. Within ten business days of the preparation of the final version of the Class Notice, CDCR
21
22

is directed to post the Class Notice in English and Spanish in all housing units of all

23

prisons housing prisoners who are or have been Ashker class members in such a manner as

24

to make the notice visible to all prisoners. This will require notice to be posted in all 32

25

male prison institutions. Within ten days of the preparation of the final version of the

26

Class Notice, CDCR is also directed to place in the law library of every such prison a

27

copy of this Order and a copy of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion. Defendants must file and

28
2
[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion re Attorneys’ Fees (C 09-05796 CW)

1

serve on Plaintiffs’ counsel a declaration affirming that notice was timely published as

2

required in this Order.

3

5. Any member of the class can write to the Federal Court about whether the Fee Accord is

4
unfair and should not be approved. The Court will consider written comments when
5
6

deciding whether to approve the agreement. These comments MUST include at the top of

7

the first page the case name – Ashker v. Governor of California – and Case No. 4:09-cv-

8

05796-CW. Comments must be received within four weeks of dissemination of the

9

Notice and must be sent to the following address: Clerk of the Court, United States

10
11

District Court, Northern District of California, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.
6. A written comment must contain the author’s full name and CDCR number, must include

12
13
14

all objections and the reasons for them, must include any and all supporting papers, and
must be signed by the class member. A class member who desires to comment but who

15

fails to comply with the above objection procedure and timeline shall be deemed to have

16

not objected and the objection shall not be heard or considered at the hearing.

17
18

7. At the conclusion of the notice period, the parties shall have ten days in which to file a
response to the objections, if any, raised by class members, and for Plaintiffs to submit a

19
proposed order for approval of the Fee Accord and Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees
20
21

and costs in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h) and 52(a). The

22

Motion is noticed for hearing fourteen days from the date the parties file any further

23

briefing addressing class members’ objections, with the intention of holding that date for

24

addressing objections and determining approval. The parties have agreed to forego a post-

25

notice approval hearing, unless the Court determines that one is required.

26
27
28

8. Payment shall be made within ten business days following entry of the Court’s order
approving the Fee Accord.
3
[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion re Attorneys’ Fees (C 09-05796 CW)

1
2
IT IS SO ORDERED.

D

RDERE

R NIA

OO
IT IS S
_______________________________________
The Honorable Claudia Wilken
Wilken
Claudia
Ju
United StatesdgeDistrict Court Judge
H

ER

LI

RT

FO

NO

6

Dated: July 1
__________, 2016

UNIT
ED

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

4

7

A

3

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
[Proposed] Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion re Attorneys’ Fees (C 09-05796 CW)