Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02112/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-02112-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

1 Other defendants include the law firm of Foley and Lardner, LLC, and two

individuals, Moser and Marshall, who were Foley partners during the relevant time and who

represented the District in the eminent domain action. These defendants also filed a renewed

motion for attorneys’ fees that is the subject of a previously entered Order.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOAN BROWN KEARNEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOLEY AND LARDNER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05-CV-2112-L(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

McCARTY’S RENEWED MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES [doc. #80]

Defendant Michael T. McCarthy1

 (“McCarty” or defendant”) moved for an award of

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $42,802.00 for his successful motions to dismiss [doc. #8], to

strike the complaint [doc. #13], and to strike plaintiff’s sixth and seventh causes of action [doc.

#15]. Plaintiff opposed the motion. After careful consideration the Court granted in part and

denied in part McCathy’s motion. The Court granted all reasonable attorneys’ fees associated

with the entirety of defendant’s motion to strike and all reasonable attorneys’ fees for his motion

to dismiss the federal claims insofar as the work performed on defendants’ dismissal motion was

premised on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The Court also concluded that the hourly rate

Case 3:05-cv-02112-AJB-JLB Document 88 Filed 10/29/08 PageID.<pageID> 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

charged was reasonable. But the Court found that McCarty’s records were somewhat vague as

to the work accomplished and there was inadequate differentiation between allowable and nonallowable fees in his billing records. The Court therefore provided defendant with an

opportunity to file a renewed motion for attorneys’ fees that would address the Court’s concerns. 

Defendant McCarty filed a renewed motion and this time seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of

$19,741.00. Plaintiff continues to object to McCarty’s request contending the time records are

vague and lacking in segregation. Plaintiff also objects to attorneys’ fees for travel time during

the period from February 20, 2006 through March 7, 2007.

The records defendants kept in the ordinary course of their engagement are sufficient to

award attorneys’ fees. Counsel is not required to perfectly segregate their fees, particularly

when legal theories overlap or coincide as in this case. Further, plaintiff’s attempt to suggest an

“objective” means of calculating the proportion of defendant’s fees attributable to recoverable

work is neither objective nor reasonable. Page length or number of paragraphs devoted to an

issue does not provide a basis for computing time spent on an argument as plaintiff is well

aware.

Although the Court held that defendant was entitled to “all work completed from

February 20, 2006 through March 7, 2007,” plaintiff argues defendant should not be awarded

travel time during that period because defendant did not seek to recover travel time after March

7, 2006. Plaintiff’s argument is without merit and borders on frivolous. Not seeking travel costs

after a particular date does not provide a logical basis for suggesting previously incurred travel

expenses are unreasonable. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:05-cv-02112-AJB-JLB Document 88 Filed 10/29/08 PageID.<pageID> 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

Having reviewed the filings and supporting documents presented by the parties, the Court

concludes that defendant McCarty’s renewed motion is sufficiently supported to cure any

ambiguity the Court previously found and the amount sought is reasonable. Accordingly,

defendant McCarty’s renewed motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED in the amount of

$19,741.00. Arrangements for payment shall be made within 15 days of the filing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-02112-AJB-JLB Document 88 Filed 10/29/08 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3