Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01111/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01111-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

 This order relates only to Defendant Domizile Homeowners Association. 2

Case No. C 07-1111

ORDER FIXING AMOUNT OF SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 4/18/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PATRICIA FAGUNDES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARTER BUILDERS, INC., a Texas

Corporation doing business in California as

CALCHART CONSTRUCTORS, INC., HELLERMANUS, INC. a California Professional

Corporation, and DOMIZILE HOMEOWNERS

ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit

corporation ,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-1111

ORDER FIXING AMOUNT OF 1

SANCTIONS

[re: docket no. 108]

On January 30, 2008, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and

imposed sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, ordering counsel to

pay that portion of Defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs related to Defendant’s motion to 2

Case 5:07-cv-01111-JF Document 113 Filed 04/18/08 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

 Plaintiff’s counsel moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 3

order imposing sanctions. The Court denied that request on February 22, 2008.

 The Court’s order dated January 29, 2008 stated, “counsel will be ordered to pay a 4

portion of Defendant’s attorney’s fees for the litigation of the instant motion.” January 29, 2008

Order at 7.

 Plaintiff’s counsel also challenges Defendant’s entitlement to fees and costs incurred on 5

November 28, 2007, November 30, 2007 and December 5, 2007, on the ground that these entries

are unrelated to the FHA claim. Defendant’s entries do not delineate which amounts were

specifically related to the FHA issue. Instead, the entries, including those focused on by

Plaintiff’s counsel, describe general tasks relating to the motion to dismiss the amended

complaint. Defendant has provided the Court with a reasonable estimate of the percentage of

time spent on the FHA issue. Accordingly, the challenged entries will not be excluded from the

fee calculation.

2

Case No. C 07-1111

ORDER FIXING AMOUNT OF SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

dismiss Plaintiff’s FHA claim. The sanctions were based on counsel’s earlier failure to submit 3

an administrative complaint that Plaintiff had filed with the United States Department of Housing

and Urban Development. Defendant has submitted an itemization of fees and costs. Plaintiff has

filed a response arguing that the amounts claimed are excessive.

Defendant’s itemization includes attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with

efforts to dismiss both the original and the amended complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel argues that

Defendant is not entitled to fees and costs relating to the dismissal of the original complaint. 

Counsel is correct. Accordingly, $11,665.80 in fees and $4,598.85 in costs, which were incurred

4

in litigating the original complaint, will be excluded.5

Plaintiff’s counsel also argues that Defendant is not entitled to compensation for travel

time and online research costs. Because counsel does not cite any controlling authority for this

argument, and because the Court finds Defendant’s claim as a whole to be reasonable, these

amounts will not be excluded. Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel challenges Defendant’s estimate that

one-third of the time spent on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint was related to the

FHA claim. Instead, based on the number of pages in Defendant’s motion relating to that claim,

Plaintiff argues that 22.9% should be fixed as the relevant percentage. Because Defendant’s

counsel is in a better position to estimate the allocation of his time, and because counsel’s

estimate is not unreasonable, the Court will accept Defendant’s estimate. 

Case 5:07-cv-01111-JF Document 113 Filed 04/18/08 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

Case No. C 07-1111

ORDER FIXING AMOUNT OF SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby awards sanctions in the amount of Defendant

$2,575.50 for attorney’s fees and $328.21 for costs. Plaintiff’s counsel shall pay these amounts

within thirty (30) days of the date of the order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2008

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01111-JF Document 113 Filed 04/18/08 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

Case No. C 07-1111

ORDER FIXING AMOUNT OF SANCTIONS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Juan Carlos Araneda: jaraneda@longlevit.com, mhigginbotham@longlevit.com,

tkershaw@longlevit.com 

Kevin Charles Canty: kcanty@angius-terry.com, cgomez@angius-terry.com 

D. Scott Chang: schang@relmanlaw.com, chobbs@relmanlaw.com, egrigera@relmanlaw.com,

mhahn@relmanlaw.com, wmiller@relmanlaw.com 

J. Michael Higginbotham: mhigginbotham@longlevit.com, tkershaw@longlevit.com 

Mark C. Russell: mrussell@gordonrees.com, apapina@gordonrees.com 

Andrew M. Wolfe: awolfe@ropers.com, djackson@ropers.com, mmcpherson@ropers.com 

Case 5:07-cv-01111-JF Document 113 Filed 04/18/08 Page 4 of 4