Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01437/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01437-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Motor Vehicle (P.I.)

---

1

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This case was removed to this Court on September 9, 2013. (Doc. 1.) On November 15, 2013, 

on motion by the Planitiff, the Court ordered this case be remanded to Stanislaus Superior Court. 

(Doc. 17.) The Court’s order remanding this case also found that Defendants lacked an objectively 

reasonable basis for removal, and invited Plaintiff to apply for the attorney’s fees and costs incurred as 

a result of Defendants’ removal. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees and costs. (Doc. 18.) 

Defendants did not file an opposition. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s application does not 

include sufficient information to permit the Court to determine whether the requested fees are 

appropriate. 

IRVING VERDUZCO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

/

Case No. 1: 13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

AND COSTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Case 1:13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM Document 23 Filed 04/24/14 Page 1 of 3
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

In determining a reasonable hourly rate, the fee applicant “has the burden of producing 

satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in line 

with those prevailing in the community for similar services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill 

and reputation.” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 814 (9th Cir. 2005). The Ninth Circuit has elaborated 

that:

This determination “is not made by reference to rates actually charged by the prevailing 

party.” [ ] The court should use the prevailing market rate in the community for similar 

services of lawyers “of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” [ ]

D'Emanuelle v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 904 F.2d 1379, 1384 (9th Cir. 1990). The “relevant 

legal community” in the lodestar calculation is generally the forum in which the district court sits. 

Mendenhall v. NTSB, 213 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir. 2000); Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767 F.Supp.2d 

1069 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (where a case is tried in the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, 

“[t]he Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, is the appropriate forum to establish the lodestar 

hourly rate ...”); Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying the prevailing rate for the 

Sacramento community to an attorney whose practice was based in San Francisco when the case was 

litigated in the Eastern District, Sacramento Division).

Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information for the Court to determine if the hourly rate is 

reasonable. The entirety of Plaintiff’s application for fees is a two-page affidavit of Joshua 

Markowitz. (Doc. 18.) However, Joshua Markowitz is not an attorney of record in this action. 

Additionally, Joshua Markowitz declares that he is a partner with the Law Office of Carcione, 

Cattermole, Dolinski, Stucky, Markowitz & Carcione, L.L.P, which Mr. Markowitz represents is the 

law firm of record for Plaintiff in this matter. Not only is this firm not a law firm of record for 

Plaintiff, but this firm may no longer exist. The Court does not possess any information about Joshua 

Markowitz demonstrating how he is involved in this case, or how the Court could determine a 

reasonable hourly rate. 

Case 1:13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM Document 23 Filed 04/24/14 Page 2 of 3
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

Similarly, Joshua Markowitz declares attorney Joseph W. Carcione contributed to the remand 

motion. However, no information about Mr. Carcione is provided. Simply put, the Court is without 

any information concerning Mr. Carcione to determine a reasonable hourly rate. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees (Doc. 18) is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any further application shall be filed within 15 days of service of this 

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01437-LJO-BAM Document 23 Filed 04/24/14 Page 3 of 3