Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00217/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00217-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7402 IRS: Petition to Enforce IRS Summons

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

NO. CIV. S-06-0217 FCD GGH PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

KATHRYN LOUISE JONES,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

On February 1, 2006, the United States filed this action

against defendant Jones to expunge and nullify UCC liens filed by

defendant against government officials. The matter was referred

to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rule No. 72-302(c). On August 2, 2006, the

magistrate judge filed an Amended Order and Findings and

Recommendations (“F&Rs”), recommending that defendant Kathryn

Jones be adjudged in contempt of court. On August 8, 2006, the

magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations, recommending 

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 37 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 3
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

This rate is equal to the rate referenced in the Equal 1

Access to Justice Act, adjusted for inflation. This is a

reasonable rate for government attorneys. See United States v.

City of Jackson, 359 F.3d 727, 734 (5th Cir. 2004).

2

that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be granted,

recommending that attorneys’ fees be granted, and directing

plaintiff’s counsel to submit a declaration deleting fees for any

time expended prior to the first appearance by defendant in this

action. On September 15, 2006, this court adopted the magistrate

judge’s F&Rs in full and found defendant in criminal contempt for

failure to comply with court orders. 

On September 26, 2006, plaintiff’s counsel submitted a

declaration, demonstrating that he has devoted fifty hours of

time in prosecuting this case. This time includes opposing

defendant’s motion to dismiss, drafting and circulating numerous

declarations, and preparing a motion for summary judgment. It

also includes attempting to serve defendant with an order to show

cause, reporting such attempts to the court, and participating in

two hearings relating to defendant’s criminal contempt for

failing to appear as ordered. This time does not include any

work prior to the filing of defendant’s motion to dismiss. At a

rate of $160.40 per hour, plaintiff requests $8,020.00 in fees. 1

28 U.S.C. § 1927 permits recovery of excess costs, including

attorney’s fees, against an attorney who unreasonably and

vexatiously multiplies proceedings. A § 1927 award requires

a finding that the attorney to be assessed not only multiplied

the proceedings but did so recklessly or in bad faith. Goehring

v. Brophy, 94 F.3d 1294, 1306 (9th Cir.1996); Kanarek v. Hatch,

827 F.2d 1389, 1391 (9th Cir.1987). The magistrate judge

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 37 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 3
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

preciously recommended that defendant’s conduct in this case

should result in sanctions under § 1927, and the court

subsequently adopted this recommendation.

Based upon the record of defendant’s conduct and filings in

this case, as well as plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration,

plaintiff’s request for $8.020.00 is reasonable. Therefore,

plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees in the amount of

$8,020.00 is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 24, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell, Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00217-FCD-GGH Document 37 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 3