Ramirez v. Parker et al

Filing 149

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS in part and DECLINES TO ADOPT in part Magistrate Judge Acostas Findings and Recommendation 140 and, therefore, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants Motion 125 for an Award of Attorney Fees, Costs, and Disbursements. Accordingly, the Court AWARDS Defendants $10,000.00 in attorneys' fees and $1,953.16 in costs. See attached 5 page Order for full text. Signed on 10/20/2015 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARICELA RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff,

3:13-cv-01772-AC
ORDER

v.
MELANIE PARKER, M.D.; STEPHANIE
ANDERSON, M.D.; LEGACY GOOD
SAMARITAN HOSPITAL & MEDICAL
CENTER; LEGACY EMANUEL MEDICAL
CENTER; LMG NORTHWEST; and DOES
1 TO 100;
Defendants.

BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation (#140) on July 30, 2015, in which he recommends
the Court grant Defendants’ Motion (#125) for an Award of
Attorney Fees, Costs, and Disbursements and award to Defendants
$22,164.00 in attorneys’ fees and $1,953.16 in costs.

1 - ORDER

Plaintiff

filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

The

matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make
a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's
report.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561

F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation on the bases that (1) her claims were meritorious
and, in any event, not frivolous; (2) the Court erred and engaged
in judicial misconduct when it entered summary judgment in favor
of Defendants; (3) the Magistrate Judge erred when he found
Defendants' Motion for attorneys' fees complied with this Court's
orders and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54; and (4) the
Magistrate Judge's award of attorneys' fees to Defendants would
cause Plaintiff undue financial hardship.
After a review of the record, the Court concludes
Plaintiff's first three Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendation are without merit.

Moreover, the

Court concludes the Magistrate Judge correctly found the hours
expended and the hourly rates charged by defense counsel are
reasonable.

2 - ORDER

In addition, the Court concludes the Magistrate

Judge appropriately awarded $1,953.16 in costs to Defendants.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff is correct that the Court may
consider undue financial hardship to Plaintiff when determining
whether an award of attorneys' fees to Defendants is warranted.
See Miller v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 617, 621
(9th Cir. 1987).

See also Lee v. ABB Daimler-Benz

Transportation, 17 F. App’x 668, 668 (9th Cir. 2001).
Although Plaintiff, appearing pro se, did not submit any
evidence concerning financial hardship with her opposition to
Defendants' Motion or in her Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Application (#2) for
Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (which the Court granted)
contains sworn statements regarding Plaintiff's financial status.
In her Application Plaintiff represented she has not worked since
2003; owns a condominium valued at approximately $65,000.00 that
is her only significant asset; and has a monthly income of
$1,251.00 per month from disability or worker’s compensation
payments.
In light of Plaintiff's modest financial means, the Court
finds the Magistrate Judge's award of attorneys' fees to
Defendants in the amount of $22,164.00 would cause undue
financial hardship to Plaintiff.

Although the Court agrees with

the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has a documented history of
filing similar frivolous lawsuits and, therefore, that an award

3 - ORDER

of attorneys' fees is necessary to deter such conduct in the
future, it is clear based on the record that such a large award
would impose extreme financial hardship on Plaintiff and, as a
practical matter, would burden Plaintiff with a debt that she
likely could not repay.
The Court, therefore, in the exercise of its discretion,
reduces to $10,000.00 the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to
Defendants by the Magistrate Judge.

The Court chooses this

amount because it provides Plaintiff with a genuine opportunity
to pay the debt in manageable regular installments while making
meaningful progress toward satisfying the obligation.

At the

same time, the Court also concludes a $10,000.00 attorney-fee
obligation is sufficient to deter Plaintiff from repeating in the
future her historical pattern of filing frivolous cases, a factor
the Magistrate Judge appropriately considered.
Accordingly, on this record the Court concludes Defendants
are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$10,000.00 and costs in the amount of $1,953.16.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS in part and DECLINES TO ADOPT in part
Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation (#140) and,
therefore, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion
(#125) for an Award of Attorney Fees, Costs, and Disbursements.
4 - ORDER

Accordingly, the Court AWARDS Defendants $10,000.00 in attorneys'
fees and $1,953.16 in costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of October, 2015.

/s/ Anna J. Brown
______________________________
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

5 - ORDER