Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00332/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00332-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 - 04cv0332

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIRTHA SORNIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 04-CV-00332 JM(AJB)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

MOTION TO FILE OBJECTIONS;

CLARIFYING INADVERTENT

OMISSION FROM REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION; ADOPTING

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AS CLARIFIED 

vs.

EL CENTRO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT; BENNY CARTY, individually

AND AS AGENT FOR EL CENTRO

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendants. 

Defendants El Centro Elementary School District and Benny Carter (collectively

“Defendants”) move ex parte to file Objections to Magistrate Judge Battaglia’s Report and

Recommendation Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (“R &

R”). On the merits, Defendants argue that Magistrate Battaglia committed a mathematical or clerical

error in summarizing the total amount of attorney’s fees. Plaintiff Mirtha Sornia opposes granting ex

parte relief to file Objections as well as granting the request to correct the perceived mathematical or

clerical error. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for decision without

additional briefing or argument.

Ex Parte Relief

Defendants move for ex parte relief to file Objections to the R & R. The R & R, entered on

November 16, 2006, was not received by Defendants until November 27, 2006, the date on which the

ten day period of time for filing Objections to the R & R expired. Defendants represent that they are

Case 3:04-cv-00332-JM-AJB Document 146 Filed 12/19/06 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

27

28

- 2 - 04cv0332

registered for the Court’s e-file program yet did not receive electronic notice of entry of the R & R.

(Fein Decl. ¶2). For good cause shown, the court grants Defendants’ request to file Objections to the

R & R.

The court also rejects Plaintiff’s argument that this matter should be resolved by noticed

motion, and not by ex parte proceeding. A fully noticed ex parte proceeding provides an efficient and

economical means of resolving relatively straight-forward issues, like those identified below.

The Objections

In the R & R, the Magistrate concluded “that a 15% reduction in the total number of attorney

hours for each attorney is warranted to address the excessive time billed for particular tasks that were

noted by the Court.” (R & R p.5:18-20). The Magistrate also found that the $250 per hour rate

submitted by Plaintiff for the attorney time of Mr. Allen was out of line with other first year associates

in San Diego. The Magistrate determined that an hourly rate of $120 per hour accurately represented

“Mr. Allen’s services given his level of expertise.” (R & R at p.9:16). Neither finding is challenged

by the parties.

The issue of mere inadvertence or simple clerical error addressed by Defendants arises in the

conclusion section of the R & R where the order concludes that the total amount of attorney’s fees is

“$192,199.50, which reflects a 15% reduction by the Court in the total number of attorney hours

submitted for instances of over-billing noted by the Court.” (R & R at p.10:25-26). The conclusion

section did not address the reduction in attorney’s fees attributable to Mr. Allen’s adjusted hourly rate.

Based upon a plain reading of the R & R, the Court concludes that the conclusion section of the R &

R inadvertently omitted from the total attorney’s fees award the reduction in fees attributable to Mr.

Allen’s reduced hourly rate. As the R & R clearly indicates that both the total hours should be

reduced (for over-billing) as well as the hourly rate of Mr. Allen (to reflect his level of expertise) the

court adopts the R & R in its entirety and clarifies that total attorney’s fees awarded is $179,437.12.

This amount consists of the sum of Mr. Woodson’s time of 563.55 hours, reduced by 15%, at a rate

of $350 per hour and Mr. Allen’s time of 115.5 hours, reduced by 15%, at a rate of $120 per hour. 

Plaintiff’s argument that Magistrate Battaglia intended total attorney’s fees to be reduced only

by 15% misconstrues the detailed and thorough analysis set forth in the R & R. Plaintiff contends that

Case 3:04-cv-00332-JM-AJB Document 146 Filed 12/19/06 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

27

28

- 3 - 04cv0332

a reduction in Mr. Allen’s hourly rate “would be inconsistent with the stated reasons for the 15%

reduction, namely to offset for causes of action that did not survive the motion for summary

judgment.” (Opposition to Objections at p.4:26-28). Plaintiff misconstrues the analysis set forth in

the R & R. As set forth above, the R & R addressed two different aspects of every hourly attorney’s

fees calculation: attorney hours and hourly rate. Each term in the attorney’s fees equation is

independent and distinct. Seen in this light, the reduction in attorney’s fees for excessively billed

hours is distinct from a reduction in Mr. Allen’s hourly rate to reflect his level of expertise.

Consequently, the court rejects Plaintiff’s arguments. In sum, the court adopts the R & R in its

entirety and clarifies that total attorney’s fees awarded is $179,437.12.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 19, 2006

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Battaglia 

All Parties 

Case 3:04-cv-00332-JM-AJB Document 146 Filed 12/19/06 Page 3 of 3