Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01719/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01719-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEIDRE BROWN, LYNN CAIN, CHERYL

GERALD, DEBRA JONES, DONNA

KELSAY, ANNE M.Z. NOVOTNY and

GLORIA SALAZAR, on behalf of

themselves and all others

similarly situated,

NO. CIV. S-98-1719 LKK/JFM

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

 /

Pending before the court is class counsel’s appeal of the

Special Master’s ruling on award of attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs

are class representatives in a class action against Sacramento

Regional Transit District alleging gender discrimination in

promotions, reclassifications and training. On February 26, 2003,

this court issued a consent decree dictating specific procedures

for promotions and reclassifications. 

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 217 Filed 02/08/06 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

2

On October 14, 2005, class counsel requested attorneys’ fees

in the amount of $15,529.50. Class counsel maintains that this

amount reflected the time she spent working on appeals and motions

regarding the reclassification of class member JanNetta Gonzalez.

On November 18, 2005, the Special Master issued an order

awarding class counsel $4,350.00 in attorneys’ fees for work on

these issues. The Special Master reasoned that class counsel had

already billed and “was paid $26,013.00 from July through September

2005 for monitoring the Consent Decree.” Special Master’s Order,

Nov. 18. 2005, at 4:11-12. The Special Master also found that the

motion to require reclassification filed by class counsel on behalf

of Ms. Gonzales was filed prematurely and that issues regarding

back pay were raised only in a teleconference. Id. at 18-25. For

these reasons, the Special Master found “that it was reasonable for

class counsel to spend 10.50 hours dealing with the

reclassification and back pay issues.” Id. at 5:2-6.

After the order was issued, class counsel requested

clarification of the order and on November 23, 2005, the Special

Master issued an amended order. In the amended order, the Special

Master corrected a mathematical error in the computation of

attorneys’ fees (correcting the amount to read $4,567.50), see

Special Master’s Amended Order, November 23, 2005, at 1:20-25, and

reiterated her reasons for denying the full amount of attorneys’

fees requested by class counsel. Id. Class counsel now appeals.

 In accordance with ¶ 29.6 of the consent decree, this court

shall only disturb a final order of the Special Master if it is

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 217 Filed 02/08/06 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

3

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” See Consent Decree at

10:13-14. 

In the case at bar, class counsel fails to demonstrate that

the Special Master’s order was “clearly erroneous.” The Special

Master made factual findings and nothing in class counsel’s brief

suggests that these findings were so clearly erroneous as to

justify intervention by this court. For this reason, class

counsel’s appeal of the Special Master’s ruling is DENIED and the

hearing set for February 13, 2006 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 7, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:98-cv-01719-LKK -JFM Document 217 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 3