Padgett et al v. City of Monte Sereno et al

Filing 1251

ORDER GRANTING 1244 DEFENDANT WRIGHT'S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY BUSTAMANTE'S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/13/2020. (ejdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 1251 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
JOSEPH PADGETT, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

BRIAN LOVENTHAL, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants.

12

Case No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR
MODIFY BUSTAMANTE’S
PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 1244

Defendant A. Curtis Wright challenges Joseph Padgett’s (“Padgett”) former attorneys’,

13
14

Bustamante & Gagliasso (“Bustamante”), application for and renewal of judgment. Having

15

considered the Parties’ briefs, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the

16

proposed renewed judgment.1
I.

17

BACKGROUND
In 2004, Padgett sued eight defendants for alleged civil rights violations. After a jury trial,

18
19

Padgett received $1 in nominal damages and $200,000 in punitive damages, which the Court

20

reduced to $10,000. Padgett thus received $10,001 in damages.
In 2010, Judge Ware, the judge who presided over this case before he retired, awarded

21
22

Padgett $500,000 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Dkt. 995 at 8. After an appeal,

23

the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded this award because Judge Ware’s order did not provide an

24

explanation of the fees. Padgett v. Loventhal, 706 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 2013).

25
26
27
28

1

Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), this Court found this motion suitable for consideration
without oral argument. See Dkt. 1250.
Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY
BUSTAMANTE’S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT
1

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 1251 Filed 05/13/20 Page 2 of 4

1

On remand, in March 2015, this Court awarded the Kallis and Bustamante law firms

2

attorney fees of $471,056.64 and $100,000. Dkt. 1087 at 14. Padgett appealed this order on April

3

28, 2015. Dkt. 1090. He contested this Court’s decision to grant fees directly to the law firms.

4

Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 722 F. App’x 608, 610 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit

5

vacated this Court’s 2015 award of attorney fees because “attorney fees belong to the plaintiff

6

absent contractual provisions to the contrary or an attorney lien.” Id. On October 7, 2019, this

7

Court reinstated its 2015 award of fees and costs after findings that the Parties’ “fee agreement

8

dictates that the disbursement of . . . fees and litigation costs go to . . . Bustamante.” Order

9

Granting Award of Fees and Costs to Law Firms at 6, Dkt. 1201. Subsequently, Padgett filed an

10

appeal. Dkt. 1208.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

On January 14, 2020, Bustamante served Defendant with an Application for and Renewal

12

of Judgment. See Dkt. 1230. The Clerk’s Office rejected that application on the grounds that one

13

of the documents that Bustamante sought to renew did not entitle it to relief. See Dkt. 1232. In a

14

separate order, the Court clarified the attorneys’ fees and costs owed and how they should factor

15

into any proposed renewal of judgment. See Order re Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for the

16

Renewal of Judgment (“Renewal Order”), Dkt. 1234. The Court determined that Bustamante may

17

seek to renew a judgment of $393,468.29 (the $100,000 owed in costs and the $293,468.29 owed

18

in attorneys’ fees). Id. at 4. Thereafter, Bustamante filed another Application for and Renewal of

19

Judgment in the amount of $393,468.29—this request was granted by the Clerk’s Office on

20

January 22, 2020. See Dkt. 1236, 1238.

21

Defendant argues that the Renewal of Judgment claims an inflated amount of interest.

22

Defendant A. Curtis Wright’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to

23

Vacate or Modify Proposed Renewed Judgment (“Mot.”), Dkt. 1244. On March 5, 2020,

24

Bustamante filed an opposition. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of

25

Bustamante’s Opposition to Curtis Wright’s Motion to Vacate (“Opp.”), Dkt. 1245. Defendant

26

filed a reply on March 12, 2020. Defendant A. Curtis Wright’s Reply in Support of Motion to

27
28

Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY
BUSTAMANTE’S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT
2

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 1251 Filed 05/13/20 Page 3 of 4

1

Vacate or Modify Proposed Renewed Judgment of Bustamante (“Reply”), Dkt. 1247.

2
3
4

II.

DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 1961 and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827

(1990) govern the calculation of post-judgment interest. Planned Parenthood of

6

Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activities, 518 F.3d 1013, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008).

7

Section 1961 provides for the mandatory award of post-judgment interest on “any money

8

judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.” Post-judgment interest must run from the

9

date of the first judgment when the damages were “supported by the evidence” and meaningfully

10

ascertained. See Kaiser, 494 U.S. at 835–36. Appellate courts may reverse and remand a district

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

court’s judgment without concluding that the judgment was “erroneous or unsupported by the

12

evidence.” Planned Parenthood, 518 F.3d at 1018. Thus, when an appellate court reverses and

13

remands a district court’s grant of damages or fees, it is possible that the district court’s initial

14

judgment will be used to calculate interest. Indeed, when the legal and evidentiary basis of an

15

award is preserved, post-judgment interest is ordinarily “computed from the date of [the

16

judgment’s] initial entry.” Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 487 F.2d 672, 676 (9th Cir. 1973).

17

If, however, the damages were not meaningfully ascertained in the initial judgment, then the

18

remand judgment is used. See Planned Parenthood, 518 F.3d at 1017–18.

19

Defendant argues that the interest accrual date is March 31, 2015—the date that this Court

20

re-awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s remand. See Mot. at

21

4. Bustamante argues that the interest accrual date is June 9, 2010—the date that Judge Ware

22

originally awarded Padgett attorneys’ fees and costs. Opp .at 2. Bustamante applies the wrong

23

standard; the Court agrees with Defendant that the interest accrual date is March 31, 2015. The

24

Ninth Circuit remanded Judge Ware’s 2010 grant of attorneys’ fees after determining that Judge

25

Ware failed to meaningfully ascertain and explain his award of fees and costs. See Padgett, 706

26

F.3d at 1209 (holding that Judge Ware failed to “show his work” and offered no explanation as to

27
28

Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY
BUSTAMANTE’S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT
3

Case 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Document 1251 Filed 05/13/20 Page 4 of 4

1

how he calculated the attorneys’ fees and costs). Indeed, on remand, after analyzing the relevant

2

factors, this Court altered the amount of fees owed. Hence, because the damages were not

3

meaningfully ascertained in the initial 2010 grant of attorneys’ fees, the date of accrual of interest

4

cannot be the date of the original judgment. Planned Parenthood, 518 F.3d at 1019. For this

5

reason, the date of accrual of interest is the Court’s March 2015 Order granting attorneys’ fees and

6

costs.

7

III.

CONCLUSION

8

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to alter Bustamante’s Application for and

9

Renewal of Judgment is GRANTED. Interest shall accrue from the Court’s March 2015 Order.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 13, 2020
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY
BUSTAMANTE’S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT
4