Vaughn v. Hampton et al
ORDER Granting Plaintiffs Ex Parte Request For An Order Approving Expenses[Doc. No. 76 .]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 10/1/2021. (dxf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 19cv1687-H(KSC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE REQUEST FOR AN
ORDER APPROVING EXPENSES
DEREK A. HAMPTON, et al.,
[Doc. No. 76.]
This is a civil rights action alleging excessive force and retaliation while plaintiff
was housed at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Center (RJD) in 2018. [Doc. No. 6.] On
August 13, 2021, after the close of discovery but before trial, the parties filed a Notice of
Settlement. [Doc. No. 73.]
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Ex Parte Request for an Order Approving Expenses.
[Doc. No. 76.] Defendants have filed a Non-Opposition to plaintiff’s Request. [Doc.
No. 80.] Plaintiff is required to seek the Court’s approval of litigation expenses pursuant
to California Penal Code Section 2085.8(a), because he owes restitution in the amount of
$3,180.60, which must be paid from the proceeds of a settlement “after payment of
reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs approved by the court.” [Doc. No. 76, at
To support his Ex Parte Request, plaintiff submitted the Declaration of his counsel,
Ken Karan, along with Exhibits 1 through 16. [Doc. No. 76, at p. 2; Doc. No. 76-1, at
pp. 1-40.] Mr. Karan’s Declaration states that all expenses being submitted for approval
were reasonably and necessarily incurred to initiate and evaluate the case and to reach a
resolution. [Doc. No. 76, at p. 2.] Exhibit 1 is a summary of $13,783.10 in incurred
expenses. [Doc. No. 76-1, at p. 2.] Exhibits 2 through 16 are copies of records showing
the claimed expenses that were incurred during the litigation. [Doc. No. 76-1, at pp. 3-
There is nothing in the record to indicate any of the claimed expenses were not
reasonably and necessarily incurred. The expenses include the costs of filing fees,
service of process, deposition transcripts, witness fees, and service of a records subpoena.
[Doc. No. 76-2, at pp. 2-40.] As noted above, defendants do not object to any of the
expenses as unreasonable or unnecessary. [Doc. No. 80.] In addition, resolution of the
case in a manner favorable to plaintiff is further support for a finding that the claimed
expenses were reasonable and necessary.
Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
plaintiff’s Ex Parte Request for an Order Approving Expenses is GRANTED. [Doc. No.
76.] The Court finds that the incurred expenses documented in Exhibits 1 through 16
were necessarily and reasonably incurred to reach a fair resolution of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 1, 2021
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?