Operating Engineers' Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California et al v. Central Valley Construction
Filing
52
ORDER denying 43 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Sanctions. ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.Further Case Management Conference set for 8/6/2019 01:30 PM. Case Management Statement due by 7/30/2019. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 7/17/2019. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
OPERATING ENGINEERS' HEALTH
AND WELFARE TRUST FUND FOR
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al.,
9
Plaintiffs,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
v.
Case No. 4:17-cv-02365-KAW
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS; ORDER CONTINUING
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
TO 8/6/19
Re: Dkt. No. 43
CENTRAL VALLEY CONSTRUCTION,
Defendant.
13
14
On June 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions against Defendant Central Valley
15
Construction, Inc. for its failure to comply with the undersigned’s December 20, 2018 and March
16
13, 2019 orders to respond to discovery responses and to produce certain documents needed by
17
Plaintiffs to complete an audit. (Pls.’ Mot., Dkt. No. 43 at 1-2.) Therein, Plaintiffs seek sanctions
18
in the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs attributed to discovery, which were incurred from
19
August 2, 2018 to present, and total $4,457.50 in fees and $147.75 in costs. (Pl.’s Mot. at 9.)
20
Defendant did not timely file an opposition, so, on July 3, 2019, the Court issued an order
21
to show cause why the motion should not be granted as unopposed. (Dkt. No. 50.) Defendant was
22
ordered to file a response to the order to show cause and to file an opposition by July 10, 2019. Id.
23
To date, Defendant has filed neither document. Per the undersigned’s standing order, “[t]he
24
failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any
25
motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion.” (Judge Westmore’s General
26
Standing Order ¶ 23.)
27
28
This provision, however, does not relieve Plaintiffs of their responsibility to comply with
federal law and the civil local rules, because they still bear the burden of justifying the
1
reasonableness of the hours claims and the rates charged. See Chalmers v. City of L.A., 796 F.2d
2
1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 1986). Indeed, “[t]he party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence
3
supporting the hours worked and rates claimed. Where the documentation of hours is inadequate,
4
the district court may reduce the award accordingly.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433
5
(1983). Further, pursuant to the civil local rules, when a party files a motion for sanctions to
6
recover attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with a discovery dispute, the motion must be
7
accompanied by a declaration that “itemize[s] with particularity the otherwise unnecessary
8
expenses, including attorney fees, directly caused by the alleged violation or breach, and set forth
9
an appropriate justification for any attorney-fee hourly rate claimed.” Civil L.R. 37-4(b)(3).
In support of their motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel Matthew P. Minser supplied a supporting
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
declaration that did not attempt to itemize the attorneys’ fees or justify the claimed hourly rates.
12
(Decl. of Matthew P. Minser, “Minser Decl.,” Dkt. No. 45 ¶ 15.) Instead, the supporting
13
declaration only provides the hourly rates for an unnamed paralegal, an unnamed associate
14
attorney, and an unnamed shareholder of the firm, as well as the total amount of attorneys’ fees
15
and costs purportedly incurred from August 2, 2018 to present. (Minser Decl. ¶ 13.) And, while it
16
states that 7.8 hours were spent researching and preparing the instant motion, it does not provide
17
the total number of hours billed since August 2, 2018. See id.
Absent this critical information, the Court cannot find reasonable the hourly rates or the
18
19
number of hours billed. See eADGEAR, Inc. v. Liu, No. CV-11-5398 JCS, 2012 WL 2367805, at
20
*20 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2012) (recommending the denial of attorney’s fees where counsel failed to
21
provide time sheets or affidavits in support of their request). The Court is also under no obligation
22
to request the information necessary to grant the requested relief.
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
2
1
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. The August 1, 2019 case
2
management conference is continued to Tuesday, August 6, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. Additionally,
3
considering the parties’ prior representation of defense counsel’s unfortunate circumstances (Dkt.
4
No. 51), defense counsel should be prepared to address whether he is able to provide continued
5
representation at the case management conference.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2019
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
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
3
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?