Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03869/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03869-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

TERESA KELLY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03869-JST 

ORDER SELECTING ATTORNEYS’

FEES AND COST PROPOSAL AND 

ORDERING REIMBURSEMENT OF 

$610.00 IN COSTS

Re: ECF Nos. 35, 36, 37

On April 30, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of this 

action without prejudice. See ECF No. 35. In its Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, Plaintiffs 

suggested that an appropriate condition of granting dismissal would be to award attorneys’ fees 

and costs to Defendant for time and effort spent litigating this action before this Court. See ECF 

No. 26 at 8-9. The Court adopted this condition and ordered the parties to meet and confer 

regarding what fees and costs would be appropriate and “not useful in continuing litigation 

between the parties.” See ECF No. 35 at 3 (citing Koch v. Hankins, 8 F.3d 650, 652 (9th Cir. 

1993)). If the parties agreed on an appropriate award of fees and costs, they were to submit a 

proposed order giving effect to that agreement by May 22, 2015. Id. If, however, the parties were 

unable to agree, they were ordered to submit to the Court competing proposals by the same date, 

and the Court would choose the more reasonable proposal. Id. (citing Sage Electrochromics, Inc. 

v. View, Inc., No. 12-cv-6441-JST, 2014 WL 1379282, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2014)).

After meeting and conferring, on May 21, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion for Attorney 

Fees-Proposal for Award of Fees and Costs in which it asked the Court to award it $610.00 in fees 

for attorneys to appear in this District pro hac vice, and also asked for $4,400.00 in fees associated 

with the preparation of its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. See ECF No. 

Case 3:14-cv-03869-JST Document 41 Filed 05/28/15 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

36. On May 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their proposal, in which they agreed that they should be 

responsible for $610.00 in pro hac vice fees, but disputed that Defendant was reasonably entitled 

to fees associated with its preparation of its opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary 

Dismissal. See ECF No. 37. Plaintiffs explained, in convincing detail, that approximately twothirds of the opposition that Defendant filed in this case was “‘cut and pasted’ from pleadings filed 

in two other earlier action [sic] for which the same relief was requested (and granted).” ECF No. 

2. Plaintiffs also pointed out that a substantial portion of Defendant’s opposition was devoted to 

discussing the standard applicable to a motion to transfer venue, which was not relevant to the 

motion for voluntary dismissal that Plaintiffs filed in this Court. See id. at 6-7.

Having reviewed the parties’ proposals and associated documentation, the Court concludes 

that Plaintiffs’ submission is the more reasonable. The Koch court distinguished between fees and 

costs associated with work that is useful solely in litigation that is voluntarily dismissed, and fees 

and costs associated with work that is useful elsewhere. See Koch, 8 F.3d at 652 (permitting 

recovery of “those expenses incurred solely on account of [this] action.”). Plaintiffs have made a 

strong case that the opposition Defendant filed here has not been useful solely in this litigation, the 

majority of it having been lifted from oppositions filed in two other cases. Defendant also fails to 

explain why it should be reimbursed for the substantial portion of the opposition that addressed the 

irrelevant issue of venue transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby adopts Plaintiffs’ proposal and orders 

Plaintiffs to pay to Defendants $610.00, which represents the costs associated with Defendant’s 

pro hac vice applications before this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03869-JST Document 41 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2