Smith v. County of Santa Cruz et al

Filing 86

ORDER DENYING BILL OF PARTICULARS, NO. 82 , AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on April 23, 2015. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

JACK SMITH,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 13-CV-00595-LHK
ORDER RE BILL OF PARTICULARS

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 82

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On March 13, 2015, Karla Gottschalk filed a “Bill of Particulars, Notice of Allied Matter

19

and Declaration.” ECF No. 82. Gottschalk was prior counsel for Plaintiff Jack Smith. On February

20

12, 2014, Plaintiff Smith’s current counsel, Kathleen Wells, filed a notice of substitution of

21

counsel. ECF No. 43. Both Wells and Gottschalk signed the notice of substitution. On February

22

27, 2015, the parties filed a joint case management statement and notice of settlement. ECF No.

23

80. On March 13, 2015, Gottschalk filed the instant request for attorney’s fees. On April 16, 2015,

24

the parties filed a joint case management statement requesting that the Court deny Gottschalk’s

25

request. ECF No. 83.

26
27

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Gottschalk has failed to comply with the Civil
Local Rules and the undersigned’s standing order with respect to noticing and filing motions.
1

28
Case No.13-CV-00595-LHK
ORDER RE BILL OF PARTICULARS

1

Gottschalk neither noticed this “motion” for a hearing, nor did she file her request as an

2

administrative motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11. The substance of Gottschalk’s

3

submission to the Court contains no memorandum of points and authorities, no citations to legal

4

authority, and no legal argument.

5

Gottschalk “requests fees earned in the above matter through promissory estoppel and/or

6

quantum merit.” ECF No. 82, at 1. Gottschalk is not a party to this action, nor has she been

7

granted permission to intervene in this action. The “bill of particulars” provides no basis, statutory

8

or otherwise, upon which the Court could grant attorney’s fees. Gottschalk provides no

9

explanation for why the Court should entertain her request for fees, and the Court finds no factual

10

or legal basis upon which to grant Gottschalk’s request.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Court therefore DENIES Gottschalk’s request for fees.

12

The parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice by April 29, 2015.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: April 23, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

2

28
Case No.13-CV-00595-LHK
ORDER RE BILL OF PARTICULARS