Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00613/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00613-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Insurance Contract

---

ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

LLP 

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 

28702781 CIV S-00-0506 WBS JFM 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN INSURANCE 

ASSOCIATION and MUNICH 

REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOHN GARAMENDI, in his capacity 

as the INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. S-00-0613 WBS JFM 

ORDER 

Date: February 12, 2007 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Courtroom: Hon. William B. Shubb 

GERLING GLOBAL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

JOHN GARAMENDI, in his capacity 

as the INSURANCE COMMISSIONER 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. S-00-0506 WBS JFM 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-00613-WBS -JFM Document 114 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 5
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

LLP 

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 

28702781 2 CIV S-00-0506 WBS JFM 

On April 24, 2006, at a status conference, the District Court appointed the 

Honorable Daniel Weinstein, Judge (retired), to serve as a special master in connection 

with the Plaintiffs’ then yet-to-be filed motions for attorneys’ fees and costs. The District 

Court at that time reserved decision on what questions would be submitted to the special 

master for a report and recommendation to the District Court. 

The District Court held another status conference on February 12, 2007 

concerning the scope of the special master’s report and recommendation. 

On February 26, 2007, with the District Court’s approval, the parties agreed 

that the Honorable James L. Warren, Judge (retired), would replace Judge Weinstein as 

special master in connection with plaintiffs’ pending motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Having heard and considered the parties’ views as to the scope of the 

matters to be addressed by the special master, the Court hereby orders as follows: 

1. The special master, on or by April 20, 2007, shall issue a report and 

recommendation to this Court as to the reasonable rates and the reasonable number of 

hours to be applied to various categories and subcategories of work on which there is 

currently a dispute as to the reasonable rates and reasonable hours. The specific 

categories and subcategories to be covered by the special master’s report and 

recommendation as to reasonable hours are limited to those put at issue by Insurance 

Commissioner Garamendi (the “Commissioner”) in the January 23, 2007 Supplemental 

Declaration of Frank Kaplan in Opposition to AIA’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Costs, which include only the following categories and subcategories of fees incurred by 

plaintiffs: 

a. Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion; 

b. Plaintiffs’ Complaint; 

c. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Commissioner’s Motion to 

Dismiss; 

d. Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion; 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-00613-WBS -JFM Document 114 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 5
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

LLP 

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 

28702781 3 CIV S-00-0506 WBS JFM 

e. Plaintiffs’ Opposition Brief to the Commissioner’s 

Preliminary Injunction Appeal; 

f. Oral Argument on the Commissioner’s Appeal of the Grant of 

Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion; 

g. Plaintiffs’ Petition for Rehearing of the Preliminary Injunction 

Appeal decision; 

h. Plaintiffs’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari following the Ninth 

Circuit’s Ruling on the Preliminary Injunction Appeal; 

i. Summary Judgment Papers; 

j. Briefing of the Summary Judgment Appeal and Cross-Appeal; 

k. Oral Argument on the Summary Judgment Appeal; 

l. Plaintiffs’ Petition for Rehearing of the Summary Judgment 

Appeal decision; 

m. Plaintiffs’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari following the Ninth 

Circuit’s Ruling on the Summary Judgment Appeal; 

n. Plaintiffs’ Merits Briefing at the Supreme Court; 

o. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Mandate following the Ninth 

Circuit’s Ruling on the Summary Judgment Appeal; 

p. Plaintiffs’ First Motion for Attorneys’ Fees following this 

Court’s grant of their Summary Judgment Motion; 

q. Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for Attorneys’ Fees following the 

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in their favor; 

r. Oral Argument before this Court on Plaintiffs’ Second Motion 

for Attorneys’ Fees following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decision in their favor; 

s. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Commissioner’s Request for a 

Stay following the Ninth Circuit’s determination that 

Plaintiffs’ were entitled to attorneys’ fees; 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-00613-WBS -JFM Document 114 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 5
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

LLP 

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 

28702781 4 CIV S-00-0506 WBS JFM 

t. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Commissioner’s “Comeback” 

Motion following this Court’s grant of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment; 

u. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Commissioner’s “Comeback” 

Motion following this Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Second 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees following the U.S. Supreme 

Court’s decision in their favor; 

v. Plaintiffs’ responses to discovery propounded by the 

Commissioner following this Court’s issuance of a 

preliminary injunction order; 

w. Deposition of Craig Berrington; 

x. July 31, 2000 Status Conference; 

y. Attendance at Oral Argument before the Supreme Court; 

z. Hearing on the Winterthur Rule 60(b)(5) Motion; 

aa. Plaintiffs’ Pro Hac Vice Applications. 

2. The special master shall also recommend the reasonable rates that 

may be applied to any category of work for which Plaintiffs seek compensation. 

3. The Commissioner has also contended in his opposition to the fee 

request that certain categories of work not listed above are not compensable at all, that the 

District Court should reduce the fee request because of vague billing, block billing, and 

billing in quarter hour increments, and that the District Court should apply an overall 

percentage reduction to Plaintiffs’ fee request. The Commissioner has reserved the right 

to assert those contentions to the District Court, and Plaintiffs reserve the right to 

challenge any such contentions. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-00613-WBS -JFM Document 114 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 5
ALSCHULER 

GROSSMAN 

LLP 

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 

28702781 5 CIV S-00-0506 WBS JFM 

4. The District Court will hold a hearing on May 14, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. 

to consider the special master’s report and recommendation and the reasonable amount of 

fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiffs. 

Dated: March 12, 2007 

Presented by: 

Alschuler Grossman LP 

By:/s/FRANK KAPLAN (authorized 3/8/2007) 

Frank Kaplan 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP 

By:/s/ MATTHEW H. MARMOLEJO 

Matthew H. Marmolejo 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:00-cv-00613-WBS -JFM Document 114 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 5