Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00784/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00784-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Fresno
Defendant
Matthew Millson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Definite Statement filed on February 27, 

2015. Defendant filed an opposition on March 20, 2015, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on March 27, 

2015. While entitled “Motion for Definite Statement,” the motion deals with unique procedural issues 

OSCAR CARTER II; JASON

DEIMERLY; MICHAEL ESTRADA; 

REX GARCIA; MATTHEW MILLSON;

GEORGE OZBURN; DANIEL

EPPERLY; CARLIN WILLIAMS;

MANUEL FLORES; ANTHONY 

DIXON; ROBERT MAREAN; JON 

SIMS; JESUS DIAZ; EDANGEL 

FUENTEZ; TIM RIVERA; DOUGLAS 

BOLTON; JAMES WATTS; and BRIEN 

MELKONIAN;

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY OF FRESNO, 

Defendants.

________________________________/

Case No. 13-cv-774-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-775-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-778-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-783-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-784-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-790-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-795-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-829-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-902-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-972-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-973-BAM

Case. No. 13-cv-989-BAM

Case. No. 13-cv-1001-BAM

Case. No. 13-cv-1003-BAM

Case. No. 13-cv-1004-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-1006-BAM

Case No. 1 3-cv-1007-BAM

Case No. 13-cv-1009-BAM

Case 1:13-cv-00784-BAM Document 52 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 4
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

arising from the decertification of a related collective action. By way of background for the instant 

motion, the Court held a status conference on February 3, 2015, and ordered that the parties file a brief

on the following issues: (1) whether there was a formal certification of the collective action in 

Espinoza v. County of Fresno, 07-cv-1145 (hereinafter, “Espinoza action”), (2) whether the District 

Judge’s ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Espinoza action, Docs. 156 and 158) is 

binding on the remaining plaintiffs who are now pursuing their cases individually after decertification 

of the collective action, and (3) what affect Plaintiffs' waiver of fees, costs, and appeal rights in the

Espinoza action (Doc. 261) has on the claims Plaintiffs now allege in their individual cases. 

The Court held a hearing on May 1, 2015. The history of the case was stated in detail on the 

record during the May 1, 2015 hearing. At the hearing, the Court asked for supplemental briefing on 

the issue of whether attorney’s fees incurred in the Espinoza action may be recovered or “continued”

in the instant case. Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Memorandum on May 15, 2015, and Defendant filed 

a Reply on May 29, 2015.

After briefing all issues, the parties have agreed on many of the issues outlined above, and the 

Court concurs with the parties’ conclusions and analysis. Accordingly, the Court finds the following:

1) Conditional certification was not required for the opt-in collective action in the Espinoza

case, and that collective action was subsequently decertified by Judge Snyder on March 25, 

2013 (Espinoza action, Doc. 181);

2) The District Judge’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Espinoza 

action, Docs. 156 and 158) is binding on the remaining individual class members. The 

issue of whether the District Judge’s summary judgment ruling in the Espinoza action is 

appealable is to be determined at a later date by the Ninth Circuit. The operative complaint

in the instant case is the complaint initiating the current action (Doc. 1) and the operative 

claims are the claims stated therein; and

Case 1:13-cv-00784-BAM Document 52 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3) With regard to attorney’s fees, Plaintiff has argued that the Fair Labor Standards Act does 

not limit the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees. Courts have recognized that in 

determining reasonable fees, a Plaintiff is not limited to only those fees incurred in the 

subject action. Instead, attorney’s fees incurred in prior proceedings can be recovered in a 

later action if the work was inexplicitly linked to the issues raised in the instant litigation, is 

useful and ordinarily necessary, and may be recovered in cases like this one, where a 

collective action has been subsequently decertified. Defendant acknowledges that the court 

in its discretion may include an award of reasonable attorney’s fees incurred Espinoza, if 

the work was inexplicitly linked to the issues raised in the instant litigation, and was useful 

and ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained in the present case. 

In light of the above, the Court finds that if Plaintiff is the prevailing party in the instant action, 

Plaintiff may be entitled to recover some reasonable attorney fees incurred in the Espinoza matter. 

The determination of the type and the amount of any attorney’s fees will occur after the disposition of 

each of the individual actions. Any attorney fee award will be calculated based on the lodestar 

method. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Ryan v. Editions Ltd., West, Inc. --- F.3d ---, 

2015 WL 2365954 (9

th Cir. 2015) (“When calculating the amount of attorney fees to be awarded in a 

litigation, the district court applies the lodestar method, multiplying the number of hours reasonably 

expended by a reasonable hourly rate.”) Therefore, the court at this time will not preclude potential 

recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the Espinoza action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00784-BAM Document 52 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Case 1:13-cv-00784-BAM Document 52 Filed 06/05/15 Page 4 of 4