Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-478/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

[510727-3] 

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS 

AND STAYING RESOLUTION OF PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE 

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 

ERNEST GALVAN – 196065 

LISA ELLS – 243657 

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP 

315 Montgomery Street, Tenth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104-1823 

Telephone: (415) 433-6830 

DONALD SPECTER – 083925 

STEVEN FAMA – 099641 

PRISON LAW OFFICE 

1917 Fifth Street 

Berkeley, California 94710-1916 

Telephone: (510) 280-2621 

JEFFREY L. BORNSTEIN – 099358 

EDWARD P. SANGSTER – 121041 

RAYMOND E. LOUGHREY – 194363 

K&L GATES LLP 

4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 

San Francisco, California 94111-5994 

Telephone: (415) 882-8200 

WARREN E. GEORGE – 053588 

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 

Three Embarcadero Center 

San Francisco, California 94111-4067 

Telephone: (415) 393-2000 

CLAUDIA CENTER – 158255 

THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY – 

EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 

600 Harrison Street, Suite 120 

San Francisco, California 94107-1389 

Telephone: (415) 864-8848 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. Civ S 90-0520 LKK_JFM 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 

DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS AND 

STAYING RESOLUTION OF 

PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION 

ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE 

PENDING RESOLUTION OF FEES 

PROCEEDINGS IN ARMSTRONG V. 

BROWN

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4029 Filed 06/28/11 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

[510727-3] 1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS 

AND STAYING RESOLUTION OF PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE 

Plaintiffs and Defendants STIPULATE as follows: 

1. Pursuant to the Coleman Periodic Fees Order, “Plaintiffs will file a yearly 

motion to compel payment of disputed items, if necessary, not later than sixty (60) days 

after the parties meet and confer with respect to the statement covering the fourth quarter 

of each year.” March 19, 1996 Stipulation and Order for Periodic Collection of Attorneys’ 

Fees and Costs. 

2. Apart from the fees and costs related to the Three-Judge Court proceedings 

and related Supreme Court appeal, which the parties are separately resolving pursuant to 

the terms of this Court’s June 16, 2011 order (Docket No. 4023), the four categories of 

disputed items from 2010 that have not already been resolved through the periodic fees 

process are: (1) Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ fees and costs associated with the 

district court and Ninth Circuit proceedings related to the C5 and C6 units at Salinas 

Valley State Prison; (2) Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ fees and costs associated with 

the district court proceedings related to Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ objection to the 

Special Master’s suicide beds recommendation; (3) Defendants’ objections to Plaintiffs’ 

fees and costs related to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel disputed attorneys’ fees for calendar 

year 2009; and (4) Defendants’ refusal to pay more than $82.50 per hour for paralegal and 

litigation assistant work on the case in 2010. 

3. With respect to the first three categories outlined in Paragraph 2 of this 

stipulation, the parties hereby resolve these formerly disputed fees and costs by agreeing 

that Defendants will pay Plaintiffs $110,905.88 in fees plus costs of $484.30 for the work 

performed. 

4. With respect to the fourth dispute outlined in Paragraph 2 herein, the parties 

hereby agree to stay resolution of the rate for work performed on this case in 2010 by 

paralegals and litigation assistants pending resolution of the parties’ related litigation on 

this issue in Armstrong v. Brown, C94 2307 CW (N.D. Cal.). The parties have fully 

briefed the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ 2010 rates with supporting evidence in that case, 

and are awaiting an order on the motion. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4029 Filed 06/28/11 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

[510727-3] 2

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS 

AND STAYING RESOLUTION OF PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE 

5. Accordingly, the parties agree to stay resolution of the final rate Defendants 

will pay paralegals and litigation assistants for work performed in 2010 pending final 

resolution of the Armstrong fees litigation, including any motions for reconsideration and 

final resolution of any appeals resulting from the order. In so stipulating, Plaintiffs do not 

waive and will enforce their right to interest in accordance with the provisions set forth in 

the Coleman Periodic Fees order. Nothing in this stipulation may be deemed a waiver or 

concession of any party’s legal arguments regarding this issue. 

6. If the requested stay is granted, the parties will meet and confer regarding the 

2010 litigation assistant and paralegal rate issues within 30 days after the Armstrong

court’s ruling regarding 2010 rates becomes final. If the parties are still unable to resolve 

this issue, Plaintiffs will file a motion to compel within 60 days of the completion of the 

meet and confer. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants agree to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $110,905.88 in fees 

plus costs of $484.30 within 45 days of the signing of this Order. On the 46th day 

following the entry of this Order, interest on any unpaid amount will begin to accrue at the 

rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (i.e., the weekly average 1 year constant maturity 

Treasury yield for the calendar week preceding the date of the Order). The parties further 

agree to stay resolution of the 2010 rate for work performed by paralegal and litigation 

assistants until final resolution of the 2010 rates litigation in Armstrong v. Brown. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: June 23, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP 

By: /s/ Lisa Ells

 Lisa Ells 

Attorneys for Coleman Plaintiffs 

Dated: June __, 2011 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: 

 Debbie Vorous, Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Coleman Defendants 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4029 Filed 06/28/11 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

[510727-3] 3

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RESOLVING OUTSTANDING 2010 DISPUTED FEES AND COSTS 

AND STAYING RESOLUTION OF PARALEGAL AND LITIGATION ASSISTANT 2010 RATE DISPUTE 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4029 Filed 06/28/11 Page 4 of 4