Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02550/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02550-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

MYRNA ABAD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILLIAMS, COHEN & GRAY, INC.,

Defendant. 

No. C 06-02550 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 61]

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is plaintiff Myrna Abad’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for

Reconsideration [Docket No. 61] requesting under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the Court grants her leave

to file a motion requesting the Court reconsider its Order of June 26, 2007 [Docket No. 60], adopting

in part and modifying in part Magistrate Judge Spero’s recommendations regarding Abad’s

attorneys’ fees. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants Abad’s motion.

BACKGROUND

On April 12, 2006, plaintiff Myrna Abad sued Williams, Cohen & Gray, Inc. (“WCG”)

alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. and the

California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq. See Docket No. 1. On

May 24, 2006, Abad filed a first amended complaint. See Docket No. 4. Abad then accepted

WCG’s offer of judgment, and dismissed her matter. See Docket No. 26 (Judgment). 

On October 10, 2006 Abad filed a Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Costs. See

Docket No. 27. On January 1, 2007, the Court referred this motion to Magistrate Judge Spero. See

Docket No. 46. On April 23, 2007, Magistrate Judge Spero submitted his Report and

Recommendations to the Court. See Docket No. 56. Objections were due by May 7, 2007. See

Docket entry dated 4/23/2007. On May 7, 2007, WCG filed its Objections. See Docket No. 57. 

Abad did not file a response. 

///

Case 4:06-cv-02550-SBA Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 4
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

On June 26, 2007, the Court adopted in part and modified in part the Report and

Recommendations. See Docket No. 60 (“Order”). As a result, the Court decreased the hourly rates

for Irving L. Berg and O. Randolph Bragg, two of Abad’s four attorneys, from $350 and $435,

respectively, to $250. Order at 3, 7. This decreased Abad’s total attorneys’ fees from 7,898.00 to

$5,370.50, or by approximately 32%. See id. On July 2, 2007, Abad filed a Motion for Leave to

File Motion for Reconsideration, requesting under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the Court grant her leave to

file a motion requesting the Court reconsider its June 26, 2007 order. See Docket No. 61. On

August 3, 2007, WCG filed a response. See Docket No. 62.

LEGAL STANDARD

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states:

Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and

liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before a Judge

requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

any interlocutory order made by that Judge on any ground set forth in Civil

L.R. 7-9(b). No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining

leave of Court to file the motion. 

Civ. L.R. 7-9(a).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 governs the process for determining attorney’s fees. As

Rule 54(d)(2) states, in part, fees are generally awarded after judgment has been rendered:

(A) Claim to Be by Motion. A claim for attorney’s fees and related

nontaxable expenses must be made by motion unless the substantive law requires

those fees to be proved at trial as an element of damages.

(B) Timing and Contents of the Motion. Unless a statute or a court order

provides otherwise, the motion must: 

(i) be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment;

(ii) specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other grounds

entitling the movant to the award[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2).

Case 4:06-cv-02550-SBA Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 4
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

In awarding attorney’s fees, a Court “must find the facts and state its conclusions of law as

provided in Rule 52(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(c). The general practice under Rule 52(a) is for a

court to make its findings of fact and conclusions of law, then issue a separate judgment under

Rule 58. As Rule 52(a)(1) states:

In an action tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must

find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately. The findings and

conclusions may be stated on the record after the close of the evidence or may appear

in an opinion or a memorandum of decision filed by the court. Judgment must be

entered under Rule 58.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1).

Rule 58(a), however, does not require a judgment issue for “an order disposing of a motion: 

(1) for judgment under Rule 50(b); (2) to amend or make additional findings under Rule 52(b);

(3) for attorney’s fees under Rule 54; (4) for a new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment, under

Rule 59; or (5) for relief under Rule 60.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). This concept is reinforced by the

fact these are final appealable orders, and do not require a judgment to trigger a right of appeal. See,

e.g., Anderson v. Melwani, 179 F.3d 763, 766 (9th Cir. 1999) (after entire matter was dismissed on

defendant’s motion, defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees, which was denied, leading to a

motion to reconsider, which was denied, leading to an appeal on the fees issue only). 

ANALYSIS

Civil Local Rule 7-9 only requires a party to seek the Court’s leave to file a motion to

reconsider, when a party seeks reconsideration of an interlocutory order made “[b]efore the entry of

a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case.” 

Civ. L.R. 7-9. Here, the Court entered judgment on October 13, 2006. Abad filed her motion for

leave on July 2, 2007, after judgment had been entered. 

As Rule 54(d)(2) makes clear, except for cases where attorney’s fees are an element of

damages, a motion for fees is generally made within 14 days after judgment. And, as Rules 52(a)(1)

and 58(a) make clear, when a court makes its findings of facts and conclusions of law, in ruling on a

motion for fees, no judgment need follow, and the parties are then free to appeal that specific order,

Case 4:06-cv-02550-SBA Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

if they desire, as the defendant in Anderson did. Thus, as Local Rule 7-9 is inapplicable to postjudgment orders, such as the Court’s June 26, 2007 order at issue here, Abad’s motion is

unnecessary. Nonetheless, to expedite post-trial matters, the Court grants it.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS plaintiff Myrna Abad’s Motion for Leave to File Motion

for Reconsideration [Docket No. 61], and sets the following briefing schedule: Abad shall file her

motion by March 24, 2008; WCG shall file its opposition, if any, by March 31, 2008; and, Abad

shall file her reply, if any, by April 4, 2008. The Court will adjudicate the motion without a hearing,

upon close of the briefing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 17, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-02550-SBA Document 64 Filed 03/17/08 Page 4 of 4