Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04144/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04144-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

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

ORDER APPROVING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED ATTORNEY'S FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 4/10/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

A.T., a minor, by and through GENNIE T., his

Guardian Ad Litem,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAJARO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT and DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

No. C-07-04144 RMW

ORDER APPROVING IN PART

DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED ATTORNEY'S

FEES

[Re Docket No. 5, 14]

On March 26, 2008, the court orders denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's

complaint for ineffective service, conditioning its denial of the defendant's motion on plaintiff's

counsel's payment of the defendant's "reasonable attorney's fees incurred for making its motion to

dismiss and for the court appearance for the hearing on the motion." Docket No. 14 at 4. It ordered

defendant to file a declaration itemizing the hours spent and hourly rate charged for its attorney's

fees incurred in connection with its motion to dismiss. Id. On March 31, 2008, defendant submitted

a declaration in support of its request for $8,388.00 in attorney's fees. See Docket No. 16, Decl. of

Kimberly Smith Regarding Attorney's Fees Incurred in Connection with Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss the Complaint for Ineffective Service of Process ("Smith Decl."). On the same day,

plaintiff filed a declaration challenging the requested amount as excessive. See Docket No. 17,

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 4
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

 Ms. Dalessandro bills at a rate of $190/hr; Ms. Smith initially billed at $220/hr (accounting for 4.1

of her 21.2 hours) but her hourly rate has increased to $240/hr (accounting for 17.1 of her 21.2

hours). 

ORDER APPROVING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED ATTORNEY'S FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG 2

Decl. of Plf's Counsel in Reply to Defense Decl. and Supporting Documentation on Fees Incurred in

Motion to Dismiss ("Varma Decl."). 

Based on defendant's counsel's declaration and the billing records attached thereto, the work

on the motion to dismiss was done by two attorneys, partner Kimberly Smith and associate attorney

Summer Dalessandro.1

 Smith Decl. ¶¶ 6. The billing records indicate that Ms. Smith billed 21.2

hours on the motion to dismiss while Ms. Dalessandro billed 17.8 hours. Id. Exs. A-C. Plaintiff's

counsel contends first, that the attorney's fees requested for drafting the motion to dismiss are

excessive and second, that the 11.2 hours billed for Ms. Smith's travel to and from Los Angeles to

attend the hearing on the motion were unnecessary. Varma Decl. ¶¶ 4, 13.

In support of his contention that the fees requested for drafting the motion to dismiss are

excessive, plaintiff's counsel submits the opening and reply briefing submitted in support of a similar

motion to dismiss before Judge Breyer in E.N. v. Byron Union School Dist., Case No. C 06-06052-

CRB. Id., Exs. 1-2. In Byron, the school district was represented by the same firm as defendant in

this case, Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP. The court has compared the opening and reply briefing

for the motion to dismiss in Byron to the opening and reply briefing for the motion to dismiss in this

case. As pointed out by plaintiff's counsel, although the briefs are not identical, the legal arguments

and authorities cited are the same in both sets of briefing. Some of the issues in the instant case are

unique, but it is fairly clear to the court that the briefing in this case was derived, if not from the

briefing in Byron, then a common ancestor to both motions. It does, indeed, appear to the court that

17.8 hours of Ms. Dalessandro's time and 10 hours (excluding time billed for travel time) for Ms.

Smith's time, is excessive for drafting the motion to dismiss that was submitted in this case,

particularly in light of the substantial similarity between the briefing in this case and the briefing on

the motion to dismiss in Byron. It should have taken no more than 10 hours of an associate's time

and 3 hours of a partner's time to draft and file the motion to dismiss. The court finds, however, that

the 1.5 hours billed by Ms. Smith to draft and submit her declaration regarding attorney's fees in

response to the court's order on the motion to dismiss is reasonable. 

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 4
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

 Of the 21.2 hours originally billed for Ms. Smith, 4.1 hours were billed at her previous hourly rate

of $220 and 17.1 hours were billed at her current hourly rate of $240. Given the ratio of hours billed

at the lower rate, the court finds it appropriate to apply Ms. Smith's new rate to the adjusted hour

total.

ORDER APPROVING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED ATTORNEY'S FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG 3

Plaintiff's counsel also asserts that it was unnecessary for Ms. Smith to appear for the hearing

from Los Angeles. He asserts that Ms. Dalessandro and another Fagen Friedman partner whose

name appears in the caption for the pleadings in this case, Laurie Reynolds, are both based out of the

Oakland office of Fagen Friedman and could have appeared instead of Ms. Smith to save costs. 

Defendant is entitled to have its motion argued by an attorney of its choice. Defendant's billing

records do not indicate that Ms. Reynolds ever worked on the motion to dismiss and defendant was

not obligated to require Ms. Dalessandro argue instead of Ms. Smith. The court therefore finds that

the 11.2 hours billed by Ms. Smith constitutes time reasonably incurred for the court appearance in

this matter.

Accordingly, the court approves 10 hours of Ms. Dalessandro's time and 15.7 hours of Ms.

Smith's time (3 + 1.5 + 11.2) as reasonable attorney's fees incurred for defendant's motion to dismiss

and court appearance on the matter. Ms. Dalessandro's time shall be billed at her hourly rate of

$190; Ms. Smith's time shall be billed at her current hourly rate of $240.2

 Therefore, the approved

attorney's fee amount is $5,668.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court approves attorney's fees of $5,668. As set forth in the

court's March 26, 2008 Order, plaintiff's counsel must pay this amount within ten (10) days of the

order or the case will be dismissed without further warning or notice.

DATED: 4/10/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER APPROVING IN PART DEFENDANT'S REQUESTED ATTORNEY'S FEES—No. C-07-04144 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Bob Varma bvarma@varmaclancy.com 

Counsel for Defendants:

Kimberly Anne Smith ksmith@fagenfriedman.com 

Laurie Elizabeth Reynolds lreynolds@fagenfriedman.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 4/10/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-04144-RMW Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 Page 4 of 4