Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00219/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00219-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pantheon Holdings, Inc.
Defendant
William Schappell
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM SCHAPPELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

PANTHEON HOLDINGS, INC.,

and DOES 1 through 50,

Defendants.

CIV. S-05-0219 GEB PAN PS

ORDER

-o0oPlaintiff’s motion for default judgment is pending before

this court. In support of his request for “reasonable attorney’s

fees” (Cal. Civ. Code § 1812.218), plaintiff argues only that he

has a one-third contingency fee agreement with his counsel. 

However, the court’s assessment must begin with the lodestar

calculation. See, e.g., PLCM Group v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084,

1095 (2000). 

////

Case 2:05-cv-00219-GEB-PAN Document 30 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Accordingly, plaintiff and his counsel are directed to file,

on or before January 30, 2006, a detailed accounting of the hours

counsel has spent on this case and the tasks he has performed,

his hourly rate and an explanation as to the reasonableness of

that rate. Plaintiff and his counsel may file any additional

documents, briefing or declarations they believe would be helpful

to the court’s fee analysis.

So ordered.

Dated: January 18, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00219-GEB-PAN Document 30 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 2