Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04702/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04702-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

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

 The court notes that its June 29 Order misstated the amount requested by defendant.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD DUMAS,

Plaintiff, No. C 05-4702 PJH

v. ORDER SETTING AMOUNT

OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AWARD

NEW UNITED MOTOR 

MANUFACTURING INC., and 

DOES 1-20,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

On June 29, 2007, this court granted defendant New United Motor Manufacturing

Inc.’s (“defendant”) motion for attorneys’ fees. The court, however, deferred ruling on the

amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded, as plaintiff’s attorney failed to provide the court

with any information regarding plaintiff’s ability to pay a fee award. The court gave plaintiff

ten days to provide evidence regarding plaintiff’s financial resources. Plaintiff, however,

failed to submit any such evidence to the court. Although the court suspects that the

requested fee amount will present some difficulty for plaintiff, the court has no basis upon

which to determine that plaintiff does not have the financial ability to pay the fees incurred

by defendant in defending against his groundless complaint. Accordingly, the court hereby

GRANTS defendant’s fee request and AWARDS the amount of $95,969.501

, which

includes $90,169.50 in litigating the FEHA claims in this case and $5,800.00 in preparing

the motion for attorneys’ fees. 

Payment of the award, is however, STAYED, pending resolution of plaintiff’s appeal

on the merits as well as this fee award, should it also be appealed. Should the court’s

summary judgment be affirmed by the court of appeals, the fee award shall be paid within

Case 4:05-cv-04702-PJH Document 52 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
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

30 days of the issuance of the mandate.

The court further orders that plaintiff’s counsel shall immediately provide a copy of

this order to the plaintiff and certify that he has done so. Plaintiff’s counsel shall also file

certification that he provided plaintiff with a copy of the court’s June 29, 2007 order and its

summary judgment order, as the court ordered him to do on June 29, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2007 _______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Court

Case 4:05-cv-04702-PJH Document 52 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2