Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02210/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-02210-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

02cv2210

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN J. BARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARLOS F. NEGRETE, HULDA

CLARK, dba NEW CENTURY PRESS,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 02-CV-2210-L (CAB)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

On April 7, 2008, the Court conducted a final pretrial conference in the above-captioned

case. The parties had filed a proposed pretrial order (“PPTO”) that the Court rejected for various

reasons as stated on the record. The parties were ordered to jointly prepare and submit a revised

PPTO that would address the issues the Court raised. After some discussion about when the

parties would be required to submit the revisions based upon their schedules, the parties agreed

to a date, and therefore were ordered to file the PPTO by April 14, 2008. On that date, plaintiff

filed a unilateral PPTO and a declaration that set forth why it had not been prepared jointly. In

his declaration, plaintiff’s counsel, David Wilzig, recited and demonstrated his several efforts to

work with Carlos Negrete, who is both a defendant and counsel for himself and co-defendant

Hulda Clark, to timely prepare the proposed pretrial order. Mr. Wilzig’s efforts were to no avail

and as noted above, plaintiff filed a timely but unilaterally prepared proposed pretrial order. 

/ / /

Case 3:02-cv-02210-L-CAB Document 140 Filed 05/19/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 02cv2210

At no time did defendants seek an extension of time in which to complete the revised

PPTO from plaintiff and/or the Court. Based on defendants’ obvious lack of compliance with

the Court’s Order that the parties resubmit a PPTO in conformity with the Court’s direction,

defendants were ordered to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. See Order filed

April 15, 2008 [doc. #123]. Defendants filed their response to the order to show cause. [doc.

#130] Plaintiff also filed a response in the form of counsel’s declaration in support of his

request for imposition of sanctions. [doc. #128] 

In reviewing defendants’ response to the OSC, the Court found that Negrete “ha[d] not

fully acknowledged his responsibility for failing to participate in the preparation of a complying

pretrial order.” (Order filed March 30, 2009 at 3.) The Court further found that Negrete’s

conduct had been willful and in bad faith and therefore, granted plaintiff’s motion for sanctions

on Negrete personally for failing to comply with the Court’s Order concerning the preparation

and submission of a joint PPTO. As a result of the Order granting sanctions, Negrete was

ordered to pay all of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees associated with preparing the first proposed and

rejected pretrial order, preparing plaintiff’s unilateral pretrial order, appearing at the pretrial

conference, and his response to the OSC. Plaintiff was then ordered to provide an itemized

statement of attorney’s fees for the Court’s consideration not later than 10 days from the filing of

this Order. Id.

Plaintiff timely filed his itemized statement of attorneys’ fees seeking $4,695.00 based on

billing rates of $400.00 per hour for David J. Wilzig and $250.00 for a contract attorney, Patricia

E. Parker. [doc. #133] Defendant Negrete failed to file an opposition to plaintiff’s itemized

statement of attorneys’ fees. The Court may deem the absence of a response to “constitute a

consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.” CIV. L.R. 7.1(f.3.c). 

 Nevertheless, the Court has independently reviewed the itemized statement plaintiff provided

and finds he has met his burden of documenting the hours expended and hourly rates for billing. 

See Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The Court finds plaintiff’s requested

attorneys’ fees reasonable.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount of $4,695.00 is

Case 3:02-cv-02210-L-CAB Document 140 Filed 05/19/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 02cv2210

GRANTED. Negrete shall make payment to plaintiff on or before May 29, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 19, 2009

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL/PARTIES

Case 3:02-cv-02210-L-CAB Document 140 Filed 05/19/09 Page 3 of 3