Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02392/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02392-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESSICA JIMENEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MENZIES AVIATION INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02392-WHO 

ORDER REGARDING MONETARY 

SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 57

On June 13, 2016, I issued an Order granting monetary sanctions “limited to the amount of 

attorney’s fees and costs necessary to bring this motion.” Dkt. No. 57. I directed plaintiffs to 

submit a declaration justifying and itemizing their revised request in two weeks, and gave 

defendants one week to respond to the reasonableness of the amount. Id. After reviewing the 

submissions, I award plaintiffs’ counsel $35,633.50 as a reasonable amount considering the efforts 

reasonably required in light of Menzies’s negligence in allowing the destruction of the records. 

Payment shall be made within sixty days.

Plaintiffs requested $53,087.33. This greatly exceeds the reasonable amount for plaintiffs’ 

motion.1 The Supplemental Declaration of Vilmarie Cordero attaches an itemization, as I 

requested, from which I am making the following deductions: (i) plaintiffs submitted inappropriate 

requests, including for making travel arrangements and for work after the hearing on the sanctions 

motion (-$1967.50); (ii) both Mr. Hollis and Ms. Cordero attended the hearing – while I recognize 

that the hearing was important, and plaintiffs’ counsel are entitled to staff their case in the manner 

 

1 Menzies argues that the fee request has tripled from plaintiffs’ counsel’s original representation. 

I accept the representation of Ms. Cordero in her supplemental declaration that the itemization is 

accurate. 

Case 3:15-cv-02392-WHO Document 61 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

they think is best for the class, for purposes of this award I will not award both counsel’s time and 

costs at the hearing (-$6000 in fees and -$577.96 in costs); and (iii) from that reduced total of 

$44,541.87, I deduct 20% ($8908.37) because plaintiffs’ counsel block bills, a practice that 

disguises the amount of time any particular item of work (counsel is advised to change that 

practice, because it will result in fee requests being reduced in many courts, including mine) and

seven timekeepers billed time to this motion, which leads to excessive conferencing and other 

inefficiencies. On this last point, I recognize that Ms. Cordero indicates that she reduced some of 

the billed hours due to duplication of effort, as she should have, too much time from too many 

timekeepers was listed on the itemization, and my further deduction is appropriate. 

While it is possible to evaluate the fee request in a more granular way, I have considered 

whether the overall amount of the award is reasonable in light of the motion that was filed, the 

reason it had to be filed, and the result. I find that the award is reasonable, and if I have made any 

math errors, for purposes of this sanctions award I would not be inclined to correct them because 

the result is fair. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02392-WHO Document 61 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 2