United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-09-0406 ORDER OF REIMBURSEMENT Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Darlene Daevu,

Plaintiff,

v.

San Mateo County, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 09-0406 JL

ORDER OF REIMBURSEMENT

This Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for her costs of attending

the hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss and strike her complaint on December 2,

2009, when Defendants’ counsel failed to appear and the matter had to be re-scheduled.

Plaintiff filed her formal request detailing her expenses, and Defendants filed their

objection to some of Plaintiff’s expenses. Specifically, Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s

claim for reimbursement of costs for service of process of her original complaint on the

County, as well as costs for postage. Defendants argued that neither of these costs appear

to relate in any manner to Plaintiff’s attendance at the December 2, 2009 hearing.

Accordingly, Defendant County objected to those amounts, totaling $83.40, in Plaintiff’s

reimbursement request.

Case 3:09-cv-00406-JL Document 36 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C-09-0406 ORDER OF REIMBURSEMENT Page 2 of 2

In addition Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s request for $128.55 as reimbursement

of her wages at $32.13 an hour for 4 hours. Defendants’ basis was that Plaintiff had not

provided any evidence of her wages or proof that she missed four hours of paid work to

attend the hearing on December 2, 2009. Defendants conceded that if Plaintiff indeed

missed 4 hours of work and had proof that she would have earned $128.55 during those 4

hours, Defendants would have no objection to reimbursing Plaintiff that amount.

Defendants requested evidence of Plaintiff’s employment at wages of $32.13 an hour, and

evidence that she would have otherwise been working at that rate on the morning of

December 2, 2009.

The Court carefully considered the parties’ positions and finds that Plaintiff is not

entitled to reimbursement for service of process of her original complaint or for postage,

since these expenses were not related to her appearance at the hearing on December 2.

However, the Court takes judicial notice that the hearing was held on a Wednesday

morning, a work day, and further accepts Plaintiff’s representation of her hourly wage and

finds reasonable her representation of the number of hours she spent in traveling to the

courthouse, waiting for her case to be called, appearing for the hearing which Defendants’

counsel failed to attend, and then traveling back to work. The Court also accepts Plaintiff’s

representation of her hourly wage, just as the Court would accept an attorney’s

representation of an hourly billing rate, without requiring any so-called “proof.”

Accordingly, Defendants shall forthwith reimburse Plaintiff for her lost wages in the

amount of $128.55.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 28, 2010

__________________________________

 James Larson

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\09-0406\Order Grant 32 .wpd

Case 3:09-cv-00406-JL Document 36 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 2