Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02287/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02287-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WOODS, et al.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 DC-3 ENTERTAINMENT LLLP, et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C-05-02287 MJJ (EDL)

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

FOR ENFORCEMENT OF

SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING IN

PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

FEES AND COSTS

The parties in this case reached a confidential settlement at a settlement conference in this

Court on September 28, 2006, the terms of which were memorialized on the record. On August 2,

2007, defense counsel informed the Court by letter that a dispute had arisen regarding a critical

aspect of the confidential settlement with which compliance had been required by June 30, 2007. 

On August 21, 2007, the Court held a telephonic conference with the parties to discuss the dispute. 

On September 4, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to enforcement the settlement agreement. 

Defendants submitted declarations and evidence from investigators to support the argument that

Plaintiffs had not complied with the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs opposed the motion,

submitting their own proof to support a showing of compliance. Defendants filed a reply. The

Court held telephonic hearings on the motion on October 22, 2007 and October 30, 2007. 

Subsequent to the hearings, Plaintiffs submitted additional forms of proof to show their timely

compliance with the disputed term of the settlement. 

The Court has carefully reviewed all of the evidence and considered counsel’s arguments. 

Case 3:05-cv-02287-MJJ Document 146 Filed 01/11/08 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

2

Based on the persuasive evidence submitted by Defendants and the unpersuasive evidence from

Plaintiffs, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failed to timely comply with the disputed aspect of the

settlement agreement. However, there is sufficient evidence to show compliance by Plaintiffs as of

September 11, 2007, but only after and as a result of Defendants bringing this motion to enforce. 

See Second Supp. Decl. of Deborah Woods and Steven Sterback at 2; Supp. Combined Decl. of

Deborah Woods and Steven Sterback at Exs. A-E. Therefore, at this time, it is no longer necessary

for the Court to enforce the settlement agreement. 

One issue raised by the parties during the hearings was which party should bear the costs

associated with the investigation conducted by Defendants with respect to Plaintiffs’ compliance

with the settlement agreement as well as attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this issue to the Court’s

attention. The settlement agreement provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs

incurred to enforce the provisions of the settlement. Tr. at 13. Plaintiffs failed to timely comply

with the settlement agreement and did not do so until the settlement payment was withheld and

Defendants sought enforcement by the Court. Accordingly, as discussed at the hearings, Defendants

are entitled to an award of reasonable fees and costs. 

On November 1, 2007, Defendants’ counsel submitted a declaration regarding fees and costs. 

On December 19, 2007, Plaintiffs’ counsel faxed to the Court a copy of counsel’s declaration in

opposition, disputing the hourly rate charged by defense counsel and the costs incurred for the

investigation. First, although Plaintiffs’ counsel believes that defense counsel’s billing rate of $665

per hour is not necessary or appropriate, he has made no showing to support that belief, such as

comparative billing rates. Ms. Hermle is an experienced partner at a large international law firm,

and her firm’s hourly rates are in line with the prevailing market. Second, Plaintiffs’ counsel argues

that Defendants could have retained local investigators at a lower cost. See Declaration of Stanley

Stone in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Fees and Costs at 2 (stating conclusorily that: “There is no

question that local investigators could have done the job at a substantially reduced rate.”). But

defense counsel states in her declaration that she was unable to locate any local investigators who

would have been competent. Declaration of Lynne Hermle in Support of Mot. for Fees and Costs ¶

9. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not submit any support for his argument of the lower rates

Case 3:05-cv-02287-MJJ Document 146 Filed 01/11/08 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

3

charged by local investigators, such as cost estimates from local firms. Accordingly, the Court

awards the costs of the investigators in the amount of $21,973.09. According to the billing records

submitted by Ms. Hermle, the total amount of fees sought by Defendants is $21,162.50. See Hermle

Decl. Ex. E. The Court reduces this amount by ten percent or $2,116.25 to ensure that only

reasonable fees are awarded. Therefore, the total amount of fees awarded is $19,046.25.

At the October 30, 2007 hearing, the parties discussed attempting to reach a stipulation with

respect to the terms for visits by Plaintiffs. The Court has not received a proposed order on this

issue. The parties shall meet and confer immediately and submit a proposed order no later than

January 25, 2008.

Therefore, the escrow holder shall distribute certain of the remaining settlement proceeds to

Plaintiffs promptly, but only after deducting the following amounts:

• The escrow holder shall first deduct from the principal amount of settlement proceeds the

amount of fees and costs awarded ($41,019.34) and shall distribute that amount of fees and

costs to Defendants. 

• Because the Court shares Defendants’ concern about future disputes regarding Plaintiffs’

compliance with the settlement in this case based on their past noncompliance, twenty-five

percent of the principal amount of settlement proceeds that remain in escrow after the fees

and costs have been deducted shall be held back in the interest-bearing escrow account until

January 15, 2010. That amount, plus interest that has accumulated on that amount and will

accumulate going forward, shall be distributed to Plaintiffs at that time upon verification by

Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiffs have continued to comply with the settlement agreement

or by motion to the Court is there is a dispute. 

• Because the Court is not convinced that Plaintiffs timely complied with the settlement

agreement, they are not entitled to all of the interest that has accumulated on the settlement

proceeds. The escrow holder is instructed to disburse the interest that has accumulated on

the principal settlement proceeds remaining after the fees, costs and twenty-five percent hold

back are deducted to Plaintiffs beginning only from September 11, 2007, the earliest date

that Plaintiffs seem to have complied. The interest from the time principal settlement funds

Case 3:05-cv-02287-MJJ Document 146 Filed 01/11/08 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

4

were deposited until September 10, 2007 shall be distributed to Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02287-MJJ Document 146 Filed 01/11/08 Page 4 of 4