Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-287/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR, et al.,

Defendants.

PRISON LAW OFFICE

DONALD SPECTER #83925

STEVEN FAMA #99641 

ALISON HARDY #135966

1917 Fifth Street

Berkeley, CA 94710

Telephone: (510) 280-2621

ahardy@prisonlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C-01-1351 T.E.H.

AMENDED STIPULATION AND

ORDER FOR COLLECTION OF

UNDISPUTED ADDITIONAL

ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

FOR 2011 THROUGH FIRST

QUARTER OF 2012

On December 17, 2002, this Court established a procedure by which plaintiffs are

to collect attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the Stipulation for

Injunctive Relief. This procedure requires plaintiffs' counsel to submit to defendants a

quarterly statement of fees incurred in monitoring work, and permits defendants thirty (30)

days from the receipt of plaintiffs' statement to notify plaintiffs of any disputed items.

After the parties meet and confer on any of defendant's objections, counsel shall then

prepare a stipulated order for payment of the fees not subject to defendants’ objections. 

The Order also states that defendants shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of the order

Amended Stipulation and Order Re: Collection of Fees

Plata v. Brown, No. C-01-1351 T.E.H.

IT IS SO ORDERED AS MODIFIED

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2561 Filed 03/08/13 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

to pay the undisputed fees and that interest on any undisputed fees will run from the thirtyfirst day after the Order is filed, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Pursuant to this procedure, plaintiffs' counsel initially served billing statements to

defendants for work performed during the second, third and fourth quarters of 2011 and

for the first quarter of 2012. The parties reached stipulations for those quarters, and this

Court entered those orders. See Docket Nos. 2419, 2431, 2441 and 2475.

Plaintiffs subsequently discovered, however, that the billing statements were

incomplete for the period June 16, 2011, 2011 through March 31, 2012, as they omitted

work performed for proceedings before the Three Judge Court. Because the parties had

previously stipulated to delay plaintiffs’ claims for Three Judge Court-related work

pending the United States Supreme Court decision in this action (Dkt. No 2321), plaintiffs

tracked those billings separately. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the parties

reached a settlement for the pre-decision fees that covered plaintiffs’ billings through June

15, 2011. (See Dkt. No. 2406.) Since the period covered by that order, plaintiffs counsel

continued to record billing hours for Three Judge Court work separately from other Plata

billing, and inadvertently omitted those hours from the quarterly billing statements

submitted to defendants for Plata work. Plaintiffs explained this omission to opposing

counsel, immediately after discovering it, in an email dated January 11, 2013.

Although this Court has previously entered orders approving the parties’

stipulations for billing during the covered periods that settled those fees, under Rule

60(b)(1), a court may relieve a party from an order because of “mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), In re Wagstaff, 3 Fed.Appx. 612,

614 (9th Cir. 2001). When considering such relief, the Court should weigh “(1) the danger

of prejudice to the adverse party; (2) the length of any delay and its potential impact on the

proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the moving party acted in good

faith.” Wagstaff, at 614. These factors favor relief from the previous orders in this

instance.

Amended Stipulation and Order Re: Collection of Fees

Plata v. Brown, No. C-01-1351 T.E.H. 2

2489

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2561 Filed 03/08/13 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

Following a meet and confer, the parties agreed to payment of $15,239 in

undisputed fees and costs billed by plaintiffs’ counsel for work before the Three Judge

Court on this action. This stipulation fully settles all costs and fees for this period.

WHEREFORE, defendants agree to pay plaintiffs’ counsel $15,239 within 30 days

of the signing of this Order. On the 31st day following the entry of this Order, interest on

any unpaid amount will begin to accrue at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (i.e., the

weekly average 1 year constant maturity Treasury yield for the calendar week preceding

the date of the Order.)

AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES:

Date: March 6, 2013 /s/

Alison Hardy

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date: March 6, 2013 /s/

Kyle A. Lewis

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Defendants

I, Alison Hardy, attest that Kyle Lewis signed this document on March 6, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: _______________, 2013 ___________________________

Honorable Thelton E. Henderson

United States District Court Judge

Amended Stipulation and Order Re: Collection of Fees

Plata v. Brown, No. C-01-1351 T.E.H. 3

03/07

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 2561 Filed 03/08/13 Page 3 of 3