Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408-42/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

KATHRYN HOGAN, et al., CASE NO. CV-F-03-6408 LJO GSA

 

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ORAL

ARGUMENT

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTY MICHAEL ROBINSON,

et al.,

Defendants.

 / 

On November 13, 2007, Defendant Patricia Towne (“Defendant”) filed a request for oral

argument pertaining to the current motion for attorneys’ fees as to Charlotte-Marie Hogan (Doc. 324).

Defendant requests oral argument to discuss the merits of the case and to demonstrate that the

prolongation and complexity of the case “was due solely to the improper and baseless arguments made

by plaintiffs.” Further, Defendant wishes to address issues raised by the Court in its Order Denying

Defendants’ Motions for Attorneys’ Fees as to Kathryn Hogan (Doc. 323), which issued after Defendant

filed her brief in support of the instant motion. 

In support of the attorneys’ fees motions, Defendant has submitted over 45 pages of argument

and hundreds of supporting documents. The Court has read and reviewed these materials thoroughly.

Plaintiff Charlotte-Marie Hogan (“Ms. Hogan”) has not filed an opposition to the instant motion,

although the time do so has not elapsed. If Ms. Hogan does not file an opposition, she will not be

entitled to appear at oral argument, per this Court’s local rules.

Based on these considerations, the Court orders:

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 325 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 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

2

1. If Ms. Hogan files a timely opposition to the instant motion, the Court will grant

Defendant’s request and conduct oral argument on November 30, 2007, as currently

scheduled. 

2. If Ms. Hogan does not file an opposition to the instant motion, counsel for Defendant is

ordered to file a supplemental brief to address specifically what can or will be presented

in oral argument that has not already been presented in the previouslyfiled materials (See

Docs. 298, 302 [Ex. A-JJJ], 317). If required, Defendant’s supplemental brief shall be

filed no later than November 27, 2007. Upon receipt and review of Defendant’s

supplemental brief, the Court will reconsider Defendant’s current request. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 325 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2