Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02153/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02153-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Colfax
Defendant
Allen Edwards
Plaintiff
Nancy Edwards
Plaintiff
Environmental Law Foundation
Plaintiff
United States
Amicus

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN EDWARDS, an individual; NANCY 

EDWARDS, an individual; and

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOUNDATION, a

non-profit organization, No. CIV S-07-2153 GEB EFB

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

CITY OF COLFAX, a municipal

corporation,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

This closed action is before the undersigned pursuant to a November 2008 settlement

agreement entered into between the parties and a January 23, 2009 order stating “that the District

Court, through Magistrate Brennan, shall retain jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2:07-CV-02153

GEB (EFB) for the sole purpose of enforcing compliance by the Parties with the terms of the

Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice.” Dckt.

No. 42. 

On April 14, 2010, the undersigned heard plaintiffs’ motion for an order finding

defendant in civil contempt for violation of the settlement agreement, which the court construed

as a motion for an order enforcing the settlement agreement, Dckt. No. 43, and defendant’s

Case 2:07-cv-02153-GEB-EFB Document 92 Filed 06/02/10 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

2

motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) or for

declaratory relief, Dckt. No. 52. Then, on April 22, 2010, the undersigned issued an order

denying defendant’s motion for relief from judgment and granting plaintiffs’ motion for an order

enforcing the settlement agreement. Dckt. No. 71. The April 22 order stated that “[p]laintiffs

will be entitled to recover some of the stipulated penalties plaintiffs seek pursuant to the

settlement agreement, reasonable attorney’s fees, and appropriate injunctive relief to compel

defendant’s compliance with the settlement agreement,” and set an evidentiary hearing in this

action for July 1, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 24, to determine the appropriate injunctive

relief. Id. at 2. The court stated that after the evidentiary hearing, it would “determine what

injunctive relief is appropriate, as well as what monetary penalties to award to plaintiffs and how

to allocate those penalties, and what attorney fees are reasonable to award to plaintiffs.” Id. The

court noted in a footnote that “[a]lthough the undersigned indicated at the April 14 hearing that

the amount of monetary penalties to award to plaintiffs would be decided prior to the evidentiary

hearing, because the undersigned will likely require some of the penalties to be used to

implement whatever injunctive relief is awarded, the undersigned will instead determine the

appropriate amount of monetary penalties after the evidentiary hearing.” Id. at 2, n.1.

However, on May 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order requiring

the payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Dckt. No. 72. Plaintiffs argue that the court should

order the payment of fees and costs now because “(1) Plaintiffs have limited resources, and the

evidentiary hearing will require a substantial additional commitment; and (2) [defendant’s]

future ability to pay is questionable.” Id. at 3. Specifically, plaintiffs note that their fees and

costs through April 14, 2010 total $186,603.64, and contend that “[t]his is a substantial sum for

Plaintiffs Allen and Nancy Edwards – who are a family of limited financial means – and

Environmental Law Foundation – a grassroots non-profit,” and that “Plaintiffs will incur

significant attorneys’ fees and costs, and in particular engineering consultant costs (likely equal

to or exceeding current costs), in preparing for and participating in the evidentiary hearing set for

Case 2:07-cv-02153-GEB-EFB Document 92 Filed 06/02/10 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

3

July 1, 2010.” Id. at 4. Additionally, plaintiffs contend that defendant’s statements about its 

dire financial situation “raise real issues about [defendant’s] ability to pay the fees and costs

incurred to date, as well as the looming possibility of [defendant] seeking bankruptcy protection

at the eleventh hour.” Id. Therefore, plaintiffs request that the court order defendant to pay

plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs within fourteen days. Id. at 5.

Defendant opposes the ex parte application, arguing that the request is premature and

“contrary to the orderly process set forth in the Court’s April 22, 2010 Order.” Dckt. No. 78 at

6. Defendant also specifically challenges the amount of fees and costs on several grounds. Id. at

6-15. Finally, defendant requests, if the court issues an order requiring defendant to pay

plaintiffs’ fees and costs now, that the court allow defendant to pay those fees and costs over

time. Id. at 15.

Although the court is sympathetic to plaintiffs’ predicament, especially in light of

defendant’s many failures to comply with the settlement agreement entered into in this action,

plaintiffs have not shown why their attorneys’ fees and costs should be paid now, rather than

after the quickly approaching July 1 evidentiary hearing, as contemplated by the April 22 order. 

It would be significantly more efficient and appropriate for the court to determine what attorney

fees are reasonable to award to plaintiffs, as well as what monetary penalties to award to

plaintiffs and how to allocate those penalties, after the evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary

hearing will be held in just under one month, and it is unclear to the court why defendant’s “dire

financial situation” would present any greater an obstacle to defendant’s ability to pay the fees

and costs after the evidentiary hearing than it does at this time. Therefore, plaintiffs’ ex parte

application for the immediate payment of its fees and costs, Dckt. No. 72, is denied.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 2, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-02153-GEB-EFB Document 92 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 3