Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00198/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00198-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Zurich’s request for fees and expenses was untimely. The request was to have

been submitted within three court days after the completion of Hamilton’s deposition, which

reportedly took place on June 22, 2007. However, no prejudice resulted from the fact that

Zurich’s submission was delayed by a few days.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SANTANA ROW HOTEL PARTNERS, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

COMPANY, GALLAGHER-PIPINO, INC. and

ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER & CO.,

Defendants. /

No. C05-00198 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

ZURICH’S REQUEST FOR FEES AND

EXPENSES

[Re: Docket No. 342]

Pursuant to this court’s February 23, 2007 “Order Denying in Part Zurich American

Insurance Company’s Motion to Exclude Expert Disclosures” (Docket No. 252), defendant

Zurich submitted the declaration of its counsel, asserting that it incurred over $10,000 in

additional fees and expenses because of Hamilton’s belated disclosure.1

 Plaintiff Santana Row

Hotel Partners filed a response stating its objections. Zurich later filed a supplemental

declaration. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, IT IS ORDERED

THAT:

*E-FILED: 7.19.2007*

Case 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 345 Filed 07/19/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Although Zurich did not submit evidence supporting its counsel’s assertions

as to the reasonableness of the stated hourly rate, this court is well familiar with the range of

rates customarily charged by attorneys practicing before it, and the claimed rate is actually at

the low end of the range for cases of this complexity and magnitude.

2

1. Plaintiff shall pay $4,630.50 to Zurich for attorney’s fees/costs incurred in

litigating Zurich’s underlying motion;2

2. Zurich’s request for $4361.00 for its counsel’s “modified and expanded”

deposition preparation is denied. These fees appear to have been the result of time spent

studying information in Hamilton’s new report. (See Jones Decl., ¶¶ 7-8). In its previous order,

however, this court stated that it did “not believe that time spent preparing for Hamilton’s

deposition with respect to his new report will be time wasted.” (February 23, 2007 Order, 6:14-

15).

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

July 19, 2007

Case 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 345 Filed 07/19/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5:05-cv-198 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Ron Howard Burnovski rburnovski@jonesturner.com 

Steven A. Ellenberg sellenberg@rubyschofield.com, mjones@rubyschofield.com 

Alan Michael Jones ajones@jonesturner.com, jgallagher@jonesturner.com 

Curtis Richard Ogilvie cogilvie@selvinwraith.com, kmcandrews@selvinwraith.com 

Allen Ruby aruby@rubyschofield.com 

Glen William Schofield gschofield@rubyschofield.com, bug@rubyschofield.com 

Gary Robert Selvin gselvin@selvinwraith.com, kshahin@selvinwraith.com 

Steven Donald Turner sturner@jonesturner.com, htornay@jonesturner.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:05-cv-00198-JW Document 345 Filed 07/19/07 Page 3 of 3