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)

Download PDF
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?