Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02231/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02231-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER ALLAN, )

) NO. CV S-01-2231 GEB GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

CITY OF MARYSVILLE, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

On June 16, 2005, Defendants City of Marysville, Michael E.

Boyd, Leonard H. Cummings, Chris S. Sachs, Michael Stout, Curt Snyder,

and Gary P. Cummings (collectively referenced as “Defendants”) filed

an application for reconsideration of the Order filed June 13, 2005,

which denied their motions for attorney’s fees and for excess fees and

costs.

Defendants argue that clear error was committed in the June

13 Order since the Order failed to separately rule on each Defendant’s

request for attorney’s fees, and did not show recognition of defense

counsel’s isolated work involved with defending 14 separate parties.

Defendants’ request for reconsideration is granted. 

Case 2:01-cv-02231-GEB -KJM Document 290 Filed 06/23/05 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

1 Although the billing entries constitute block billing, which

creates an impediment to the analysis of the reasonableness of the

billing entries, sufficient information is provided. Fischer v. SJB-P.

D., Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding sufficient a

summary of the time spent on a broad category of tasks).

2

“A defendant may recover § 1988 attorney fees only if ‘the

plaintiff’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation,

even though not brought in subjective bad faith.’” Saman v. Robbins,

173 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). The isolated

work involved with Defendants’ respective motions is addressed below

in the same alphabetical order that the work is discussed in the

declaration of defense counsel Franklin G. Gumpert. (See Decl. of

Franklin G. Gumpert, at 7-9.)

(A) This portion of the motion is denied. This claim was

not frivolous since it was supported by Plaintiff’s medical expert.

(B) This portion of the motion is granted since Gary

Cummings should not have been included as a Defendant.1

(C) This portion of the motion is granted since the City of

Marysville and Michael Boyd should not have been included as

Defendants.

(D) This portion of the motion is denied. Even though

Plaintiff did not prevail against Defendant Chris Sachs at trial, in

light of Plaintiff’s theory of liability and the factual contentions

she proffered, her claim against Sachs was not so totally devoid of

merit that it could be termed frivolous, unreasonable, or without

foundation. 

(E) This portion of the motion is denied for the reason

stated above in Section D.

Case 2:01-cv-02231-GEB -KJM Document 290 Filed 06/23/05 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

(F) This portion of the motion is denied for the reason

stated above in Section D.

(G) This portion of the motion is granted since those

claims should not have been pursued.

(H) This portion of the motion is granted for the reason

stated above in Section G.

(I) This portion of the motion is granted for the reason

stated above in Section G.

(J) This portion of the motion is granted for the reason

stated above in Section G.

(K) This portion of the motion is granted since that claim

should not have been pursued.

(L) This portion of the motion is denied since it is

unclear why the stated amount of time was expended on the referenced

tasks. The trial court need not accept “uncritically” defense

counsel’s “representation concerning the time expended.” Frank Music

Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 886 F.2d 1545, 1557 (9th Cir.

1989).

(M) This portion of the motion is denied since it is

unclear why it took defense counsel 20.3 hours to do the referenced

tasks.

(N) This portion of the motion is granted in part. This

portion of the motion appears to request fees for preparing the

motion, even though a substantial portion of the motion seeks

sanctions against Plaintiff which will not be imposed. Since

Defendants are not prevailing parties on the sanctions request, the

amount of fees requested in this portion of the motion is reduced by

Case 2:01-cv-02231-GEB -KJM Document 290 Filed 06/23/05 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

$2,000.00, which is assumed to eliminate the sanctions portion of the

motion from the fee request.

Defendants also argue they are entitled to excess fees and

costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. (Defs.’ Mot. for Att’ys Fees and for

Excessive Fees and Costs at 19.) However, because Defendants’ request

for sanctions is denied, Defendants’ request for excess fees and costs

is also denied.

For the stated reasons, Defendants are awarded $31,547.50 in

attorney’s fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:01-cv-02231-GEB -KJM Document 290 Filed 06/23/05 Page 4 of 4