Padgett et al v. City of Monte Sereno et al

Filing 1095

ORDER denying 1088 Motion for Clarification. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/13/2015. (ejdlc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

JOSEPH PADGETT, et al.,

Case No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD

Plaintiffs,
9

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION

v.
10
11

BRIAN LOVENTHAL, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 1088

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
Presently before the Court is a Motion for Clarification of the Amended Order denying

13
14

Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion

15

for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. See Dkt. Nos. 1087 (“Order”); 1088 (“Mot.”). Having carefully

16

reviewed this matter, the motion will be denied for the reasons explained below.

17

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

18

In September 2004, Plaintiffs Joseph and Darla Padgett (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this civil

19

rights action against the City of Monte Sereno, city elected officials and city employees. Plaintiffs

20

asserted seven claims for violation of their constitutional rights and for emotional distress,

21

stemming from a dispute with the City about enforcement of a fence height ordinance. See Order

22

at 1-2. Two claims asserting the violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendments proceeded to

23

trial, whereby only Mr. Padgett prevailed on one claim against one defendant. Id. at 2. Mr.

24

Padgett was awarded nominal and punitive damages. Id.

25

After trial was completed, Plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. Presiding over

26

this case, Judge James Ware awarded Plaintiffs $500,000 in attorneys’ fees and $100,000 in costs.

27

Id. at 3. Defendants appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, and in February 2013, the Ninth

28

1
Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

1

Circuit vacated and remanded the Court’s decision due to the absence of an explanation on how

2

the Court determined attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. After this case was reassigned to the

3

undersigned judge, the parties were ordered to submit renewed motions for attorneys’ fees and

4

costs. Id. On March 31, 2015, after evaluating the renewed motions, this Court awarded

5

$471,056.64 in attorneys’ fees and $100,000 in costs.1 Id. at 11-12. The instant Motion for

6

Clarification follows the Court’s decision on attorneys’ fees and costs.
II.

7

“A court may clarify its order for any reason.” Wahl v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. C 08-0555

8
9

DISCUSSION

RS, 2010 WL 2867130, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2010). This type of request “invite[s]
interpretation, which trial courts are often asked to supply, for the guidance of the parties.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Bordallo v. Reyes, 763 F.2d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 1985). From this, it is apparent that the

12

clarification process presumes some legitimate need supporting relief, such as the existence of

13

ambiguity or confusion that can be corrected with further explanation. But, where an order or

14

direction of the Court is clear, it follows that clarification is unnecessary.

15

Here, the motion poses five questions to the Court, but provides no argument or

16

explanation as to why the Order is confusing or ambiguous such that clarification is necessary.

17

See Mot. at 1. The type of clarification sought pertaining to the vesting of fees and a proposed

18

judgment is unclear. Moreover, seeking clarification on whether “the Court was aware” of certain

19

items appear to be a masked motion for reconsideration, and seeking clarification on whether the

20

Court reduced the fee award based on work performed during summary judgment is unnecessary

21

given the clear explanation provided in the Order. A Motion for Clarification cannot be used as a

22

vehicle to raise issues that should have either been raised in the original motion or through a

23

proper motion for reconsideration.

24
25
26
27
28

1

As the Order states, Mr. Padgett failed to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of
McManis Faulkner & Morgan. See Order at 3-4. Therefore, the Order considered only the
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs on behalf of Kallis & Associates and Bustamante O’Hara
and Gagliasso. See id. at 4.
2
Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

This Court does not find that a clarification is necessary. The Order provides the amount

1
2

awarded to counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs, and provides a detailed explanation as to how the

3

Court arrived at those figures. Nothing more needs to be said.

4

III.

5

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Clarification is DENIED.

6
7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2015
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

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
Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION