San Diego Puppy, Inc. et al v. San Diego, City of et al
Filing
78
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 56 57 59 Motions for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 8/28/2015. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
SAN DIEGO PUPPY, INC., a
California corporation; DAVID
SALINAS and VERONICA
SALINAS, husband and wife,
Case No.: 13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S
FEES
8
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
15
SAN DIEGO ANIMAL DEFENSE
TEAM, business entity of unknown
form; ANIMAL PROTECTION
AND RESCUE LEAGUE, a
California 501(c)(3) corporation;
COMPANION ANIMAL
PROTECTION SOCIETY,
Delaware non-profit corporation;
BRYAN PEASE, a California
resident,
16
Defendants.
11
12
13
14
17
18
Defendants have filed motions for attorney’s fees. For the reasons
19
discussed below, Defendants’ motions for attorney’s fees are GRANTED IN
20
PART and DENIED IN PART.
1
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
I.
1
BACKGROUND
2
On November 25, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint asserting
3
twelve causes of action. Defendants Animal Protection and Rescue League
4
(“APRL”), Bryan Pease (“Pease”), and Companion Animal Protection Society
5
(“CAPS”) each brought a special motion to strike Plaintiffs’ complaint
6
pursuant to Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. On September 11, 2014, the
7
Court granted each Defendant’s special motion to strike and directed each
8
Defendant to file a motion for attorney’s fees. The Court also gave Plaintiffs
9
leave to file an amended complaint only as to Count VI, which alleged a
10
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
11
On September 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a two-page First Amended
12
Complaint (“FAC”). On November 6, 2014, Plaintiffs filed what the Court
13
considered as a motion for leave to amend their FAC and a proposed Second
14
Amended Complaint. On June 12, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ FAC
15
and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the FAC.
16
On June 29, 2015, the Court ordered the Singleton Law Firm to submit
17
papers itemizing its attorney’s fees in its representation of Defendant Pease.
18
//
19
//
20
//
2
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
II.
1
LEGAL STANDARD
2
Defendants APRL, Pease, and CAPS each seek to recover the
3
attorney’s fees they incurred in connection with prosecuting the special
4
motions to strike and the instant motions for attorney’s fees.
5
As the prevailing parties on their special motions to strike, Defendants
6
are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
7
425.16(c). Defendants may recover attorney’s fees and costs only for the
8
motion to strike, not the entire litigation. Christian Research Inst. v. Alnor,
9
165 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1320 (2008) (citations omitted).
10
The amount of the prevailing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees is
11
calculated by utilizing the lodestar method.
Camacho v. Bridgeport
12
Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). To calculate the “lodestar,”
13
the court multiplies the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably
14
expended on the litigation by a reasonable rate. Morales v. City of San
15
Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996). There is a strong presumption that
16
the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee. Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d
17
16, 18 (9th Cir. 1994).
18
However, courts may adjust the lodestar figure upward or downward
19
based upon the following factors enunciated in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild,
20
Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975): (1) the time and labor required, (2) the
3
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to
2
perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by
3
the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6)
4
whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the
5
client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained,
6
(9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the
7
“undesirability” of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional
8
relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases. “Among the
9
subsumed factors presumably taken into account in either the reasonable
10
hours component or the reasonable rate component of the lodestar
11
calculation are: (1) the novelty and complexity of the issues, (2) the special
12
skill and experience of counsel, (3) the quality of representation, (4) the
13
results obtained and (5) the contingent nature of the fee agreement.”
14
Morales, 96 F.3d at 364 n.9.
15
16
III.
DISCUSSION
17
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants should not be granted attorney’s fees
18
because Plaintiffs have not acted in “bad faith.” Doc. 71 at 3. But as the
19
prevailing parties in their special motions to strike, Defendants are “entitled”
20
to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c);
4
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
Christian Research Inst., 165 Cal. App. 4th at 1321.
2
Plaintiffs do not dispute the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged
3
or the number of hours billed by each of the attorneys who represented
4
Defendants APRL, Pease, and CAPS.
5
6
A. Animal Protection and Rescue League (“APRL”)
7
Defendant Animal Protection and Rescue League (“APRL”) is
8
represented by attorneys David Simon (“Simon”) and Bryan Pease
9
(“Pease”). Simon’s hourly rate is $425 per hour. Pease’s hourly rate is $375
10
per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates
11
in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable. See Doc.
12
57, Simon Decl., Exh. A.
13
APRL seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $67,959.38. Simon billed
14
40.25 hours at $425 per hour and Pease billed 75.20 hours at $375 per hour.
15
Both attorneys requested a 1.5 lodestar multiplier to account for the
16
contingent nature of their representation of APRL. As detailed below, the
17
Court will not grant the full amount requested. The Court makes reductions
18
for, among other things, excessive time spent on certain tasks and work that
19
should not be billed to the client.
20
//
5
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
1. David Simon’s Fees
2
Date
3
12/13/13
Review APRL
filing
12/13/13
Exchange
emails with
Pease re filing
and hearing
0.40
12/13/13
Review and
research basis
for Plaintiffs’
TRO
application
Prepare for
TRO hearing
Participate in
telephone
hearing re TRO
Review
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Review notice
of voluntary
dismissal
against San
Diego Humane
Society, City of
2.00
Description
Time
Billed
0.35
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
12/13/13
13
12/13/13
14
15
1/10/14
16
17
18
19
20
1/17/14,
2/5/14
Time
Reason for
Allowed
Reduction
0
Vague
description;
presumably for
opposition to
TRO, work not
related to motion
to strike
0
Vague
description;
presumably for
opposition to
TRO, work not
related to motion
to strike
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.75
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike
1.25
0
0.35
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.40
(0.20 for
each
voluntary
dismissal)
0.10
Each notice was
less than onepage and did not
require more than
a minute to review
6
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
2
1/23/14
3
4
5
1/30/14
6
San Diego;
related emails
Review and
reply to
multiple emails
from counsel;
reply to email
from Singleton
Review joint
motion to
extend time to
respond
0.45
0
0.20
0.10
0.40
0
0.20
0.10
Scheduling a
hearing should
not require the
requested time
0.20
0
Vague description
0.20
0
Vague description
0.35
0
Vague description
0.60
0.10
Scheduling orders
not substantive
that requires time
7
8
2/13/14
9
10
11
2/14/14
12
13
14
2/18/14
15
16
2/22/14
17
3/3/14
18
19
20
3/8/14,
3/19/14,
3/27/14
Review email
from court
clerk; email
and phone call
with Pease re
same
Review
numerous
emails re
changing date
of anti-SLAPP
hearing
Review email
from court
clerk; email
Pease re same
Phone call with
Pease
Phone call and
email with
Pease re case
status
Review order
scheduling
settlement
Vague
description;
presumably work
not related to
motion to strike
since already filed
Joint motion less
than two pages
long would take
no more than a
few minutes to
review
Vague description
7
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
conference and
calendar
2
3
4
5/5/14,
5/6/14,
5/20/14
5/24/14
5
6
7
9/23/14
8
9
10
10/9/14
11
12
Emails with
0.40
Pease; review
motion and
orders re:
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Download and 0.35
review
Plaintiffs’ First
Amended
Complaint and
exhibits
Review and
0.35
reply to emails
from cocounsel re
12(b)(6) motion
0
to review;
calendaring
should not require
requested time
Vague
description; work
not related to
motion to strike
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
13
Simon billed approximately 7.95 hours on the motion for attorney’s
14
fees. The Court finds that 5 hours would have been sufficient to prepare the
15
motion for attorney’s fees.
16
2. Bryan Pease’s Fees
17
18
19
Date
12/2/13,
12/3/13
Description
Review notice
of deficiency
from clerk
Time
Billed
0.20
(0.10 for
each
notice)
20
Time
Reason for
Allowed
Reduction
0.10
Notice is not a
substantive notice
or order that
requires much
time to review
8
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
12/12/13
2
12/12/13
Review motion 4.50
for TRO
Review email
0.10
from court clerk
0
0
3
12/13/13
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Opposition to
TRO
12/13/13 Review City of
San Diego’s
Opposition to
TRO
12/13/13 Hearing on
TRO
12/16/13 Review order
granting joint
motion to
extend time to
respond and
“minute entry
for
proceedings”
12/11/13, Review joint
12/30/13, motion to
1/30/13
extend time to
respond
3
0
1
0
1
0
0.20
0
0.30
(0.10 for
each joint
motion)
0.10
1/3/14,
2/5/14
0.20
(0.10 for
each
order)
0
2.50
0
0.20
0
16
17
1/10/14
18
19
20
1/17/14
Review order
granting joint
motion to
extend time to
respond
Review
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Review order
denying
Plaintiffs’
Work not related
to motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike;
vague description
Work not related
to motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike
Order and minute
entry not
substantive that
requires time to
review
Each joint motion
less than two
pages long would
take no more than
a minute to review
Three-sentence
order not
substantive that
requires time to
review
Work not related
to motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike;
one-page order
9
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
2
1/17/14
3
4
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Review
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
notice of
appearance
0.10
0
Review notice
of voluntary
dismissal
against San
Diego Humane
Society, City of
San Diego
Review
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Review order
to show cause
re Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
0.20
(0.10 for
each
voluntary
dismissal)
0.10
0.50
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.20
0
Review order
granting
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Email with
court clerk and
other attorneys
re: scheduling
hearing
0.20
0
0.30
0.10
Work not related
to motion to strike;
one-paragraph
order not
substantive that
requires time to
review
Work not related
to motion to strike;
one-page order
would take no
more than a
minute to review
Scheduling a
hearing should
not require the
requested time
5
6
1/18/14,
2/5/14
7
8
9
1/23/14
10
11
1/23/14
12
13
14
15
2/6/14
16
17
18
19
20
2/14/14
would take no
more than a
minute to review
Work not related
to motion to strike;
notice is not
substantive that
requires time to
review
Each notice was
less than onepage and did not
require more than
a minute to review
10
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
2/18/14
2
3
3/3/14
4
5
6
3/7/14
7
8
9
10
4/24/14
11
12
13
5/2/14
14
15
16
5/13/14
17
18
19
5/20/14
20
Email with
court clerk and
other attorneys
re: hearing off
calendar
Email with
court clerk and
other attorneys
re: status of
anti-SLAPP
ruling
Review order
denying as
moot San
Diego Humane
Society’s
motion to
dismiss
Review order
to show cause
re Plaintiffs’
attorney failing
to appear at
ENE
Review
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
declaration in
response to
OSC
Phone with
clerk re: antiSLAPP hearing
off calendar,
correspond
with other
attorneys
Review order
re Plaintiffs’
0.20
0.10
Canceling a
hearing should
not require the
requested time
0.20
0.10
Asking court re
status of order
should not require
the requested
time
0.10
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.20
0.10
Two-page OSC
should not require
the requested
time
0.30
0.10
One-sentence
declaration did not
require more than
a minute to review
0.50
0.10
Vague
description;
canceling a
hearing should
not require the
requested time
0.10
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
11
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
2
5/23/14
3
4
5
6/2/14
6
7
8
7/12/14
9
10
11
8/25/14
12
9/18/14
13
14
9/23/14
15
16
9/24/14
17
9/30/14
18
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Review
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Review order
to show cause
re Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Review order
granting
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
motion to
withdraw
Review notice
of substitution
of attorney
Review motion
to substitute
attorney
Review
Plaintiffs’ First
Amended
Complaint
Meeting with
Cardiff re: FAC
Review order
re FAC
0.50
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.10
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.10
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.10
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.10
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.40
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.60
0
0.1
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike
19
Simon projected that he would work 8 hours and Pease projected that
20
he would work 12 hours to “draft reply papers and prepare for and participate
12
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
in hearing on fee motion.” The Court finds that 3 hours each would have
2
been more than sufficient for Simon and Pease to analyze, research, and
3
draft the reply.
4
The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into
5
account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the
6
recovery of 23.5 hours worked by Simon at the hourly rate of $425 and 48.8
7
hours worked by Pease at the rate of $375, for a total of $28,287.50. The
8
Court finds that the hourly rate provides adequate and reasonable
9
compensation and a review of the Kerr factors does not support a lodestar
10
multiplier.
11
12
B. Bryan Pease (“Pease”)
13
Defendant Bryan Pease (“Pease”) is represented by attorney Todd T.
14
Cardiff (“Cardiff”) and the Singleton Law Firm, APC. Cardiff’s hourly rate is
15
$350 per hour.
16
McHarrie (“McHarrie”) and Paralegal Tyler Waters (“Waters”) from the
17
Singleton Law Firm also represented Pease. Singleton’s hourly rate is $650
18
per hour. McHarrie’s hourly rate is $175 per hour. Waters’ hourly rate is $65
19
per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates
20
in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable except as to
Attorneys Gerald Singleton (“Singleton”) and Jessica
13
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
Singleton for whom the Court finds $425 to be a reasonable hourly rate (the
2
same as for David Simon).
3
Pease seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $33,475.00.1 Cardiff
4
billed 42 hours ($14,700.00) and requested a 1.3 lodestar multiplier to
5
account for the contingent nature of his representation of Pease
6
($19,110.00). Cardiff also billed an additional 7 hours ($2450.00) for Pease’s
7
Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees.
8
Singleton billed 8.75 hours ($5687.50), McHarrie billed 35.4 hours
9
($6195.00), and Waters billed 0.5 hours ($32.50). The Singleton Law Firm
10
did not request a lodestar multiplier. As detailed below, the Court will not
11
grant the full amount requested. The Court makes reductions for, among
12
other things, excessive time spent on certain tasks and work that should not
13
be billed to the client.
14
//
15
//
16
//
17
18
19
20
Pease’s moving papers state $31,317.50 as the total amount of attorney’s
fees. However, the Singleton Law Firm corrected the number of hours it
actually billed in its supplemental submission. Cardiff also billed additional
time for drafting Pease’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’
Motions for Attorney’s Fees. Therefore, according to the Court’s calculation,
the correct total amount of attorney’s fees sought is $33,475.00.
1
14
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
1. Todd T. Cardiff’s Fees
2
Date
Description
3
12/12/13
Telephone call
with Plaintiffs’
attorney
Review and
analyze TRO
Review and
analyze
APRL’s
Opposition to
TRO
Review and
analyze City of
San Diego’s
Opposition to
TRO
TRO hearing
and travel
Review and
analyze City of
San Diego’s
discovery on
Plaintiffs
Review City of
San Diego’s
Notice to
Produce
Review and
analyze
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
notice of
motion to
withdraw
Telephone call
with client re:
4
12/13/13
5
12/13/13
6
7
8
12/13/13
9
10
12/13/13
11
12
12/19/13
13
14
12/20/13
15
16
1/10/14
17
18
19
20
1/31/14
Time
Billed
0.10
Time
Reason for
Allowed
Reduction
0
Vague description
1.50
0
0.40
0
0.80
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
3.00
0
0.20
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.10
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.50
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.30
0
Vague
description; work
Work not related
to motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike
15
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
2
2/3/14
3
4
Plaintiffs and
scheduling
Review
stipulation for
City of San
Diego to
extend time to
respond
not related to
motion to strike
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.20
0
0.60
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.40
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.10
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
0.60
0
Work not related
to motion to strike
5
5/4/14
6
7
8
9
10
9/23/14
11
12
9/24/14
13
14
15
16
9/24/14
Review
Plaintiffs’
attorney’s
declaration re:
failure to
appear at
settlement
conference;
discuss with
client
Review and
analyze
Plaintiffs’ FAC
Discuss with
paralegal
calendar for
filing response
to FAC; file
maintenance
Meeting with
client to
discuss FAC
17
18
Cardiff billed approximately 10.7 hours on the motion for attorney’s
19
fees and stated that he anticipates spending an additional 2.5 hours on the
20
same fee motion. The Court finds that 5 hours would have been sufficient to
16
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
prepare the motion for attorney’s fees.
2
Cardiff also billed 10 hours to draft Pease’s Reply to Plaintiffs’
3
Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees. The Court finds that
4
5 hours would have been more than sufficient to analyze, research, and draft
5
the reply.
6
2. Gerald Singleton’s Fees
7
Date
8
1/14/14
9
10
Description
Exchanged
emails with
client and
emailed Tyler
re issues
raised by client
Time
Billed
0.10
Time
Reason for
Allowed
Reduction
0
Vague description
of emails and
work not related
to motion to strike
11
12
The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into
13
account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the
14
recovery of 25 hours worked by Cardiff at the hourly rate of $350 ($8750.00).
15
The Court finds that the hourly rate provides adequate and reasonable
16
compensation and a review of the Kerr factors does not support a lodestar
17
multiplier. The Court will also allow the recovery of an additional 5 hours
18
($1750.00) to Cardiff for drafting Pease’s Reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition to
19
Defendants’ Motions for Attorney’s Fees. The Court allows the recovery of
20
8.65 hours worked by Singleton ($3676.25), 35.4 hours worked by McHarrie
17
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
($6195.00), and 0.5 hours worked by Tyler ($32.50). In sum, the Court
2
awards a total fee award of $20,403.75.
3
4
C. Companion Animal Protection Society (“CAPS”)
5
Defendant Companion Animal Protection Society (“CAPS”) is
6
represented by attorneys Gretel Smith (“Smith”) and John T. Maher
7
(“Maher”). Smith’s hourly rate is $250 per hour. Maher’s hourly rate is $350
8
per hour. Based on the experience of the billing attorneys and standard rates
9
in the community, the Court finds that the rates are reasonable.
10
CAPS seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $18,087.50 (Smith billed
11
53.8 hours at $250 per hour and Maher billed 13.25 hours at $350 per hour).2
12
As detailed below, the Court will not grant the full amount requested. The
13
Court makes reductions for, among other things, excessive time spent on
14
certain tasks and work that should not be billed to the client.
1. Gretel Smith’s Fees
15
16
Date
17
12/2/13
Description
Email to/from
Maher
Time
Billed
0.40
Time
Reason for
Allowed
Reduction
0
Vague description
of email before
18
19
20
CAPS’ moving papers state that Maher billed 13.5 hours for a total amount
of $4631.50 in attorney’s fees. However, upon review of Maher’s time
details, it appears that Maher billed 13.25 hours for a total amount of
$4637.50 in attorney’s fees.
2
18
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Telephone call
with Maher re:
CAPS
representation
12/6/13
Draft and email
retainer
agreement
3/19/14, Telephone call
4/15/14, with court clerk
10/10/14 re: hearing
date
12/20/13, Voicemail left
12/23/13, for Plaintiffs’
1/9/14,
attorney
0.50
0
retainer
agreement sent
Not a billable task
0.60
0
Not a billable task
0.60
(0.20 for
each call)
0.10
Each call did not
require more than
a few minutes
0.60
0.10
(0.20 for
each
voicemail)
9/23/14
0.50
0
Each voicemail
should not take
twelve minutes;
Vague description
re: voicemail
Work not related
to motion to strike
2.40
0
12/3/13
9
10
11
12
10/13/14
13
14
Date
16
8/25/14
18
Work not related
to motion to strike
2. John T. Maher’s Fees
15
17
Review First
Amended
Complaint
(“FAC”)
Draft motion to
dismiss FAC
Description
Time
Billed
Emails to Smith 0.25
and “DH” and
check docket
for decision
Time
Reason for
Allowed
Reduction
0
Vague description
of emails and not
a billable task
19
The Court finds the other hours spent to be reasonable. Taking into
20
account the reduction of hours detailed above, the Court will allow the
19
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
1
recovery of 48.4 hours worked by Smith at the hourly rate of $250 and 13
2
hours worked by Maher at the hourly rate of $350, for a total of $16,650.00.
3
No upward or downward adjustment to the lodestar amount is warranted.
4
IV.
5
CONCLUSION
6
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motions for attorney’s
7
fees are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court awards
8
Defendant Animal Protection and Rescue League attorney’s fees in the
9
amount of $28,287.50. The Court awards Defendant Bryan Pease attorney’s
10
fees in the amount of $20,403.75. The Court awards Defendant Companion
11
Animal Protection Society attorney’s fees in the amount of $16,650.00. The
12
Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly against Plaintiffs jointly and severally
13
in the above amounts.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: September 28, 2015
16
17
18
19
20
20
13-cv-2783-BTM-DHB
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?