Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation

N.D. California

Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 24, 2023·No. 4:18-cv-03297·Unknown

Opinion

WALEED AL-QARQANI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-03297-JSW Petitioners, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS A COMPENSATORY SANCTION CHEVRON CORPORATION and CHEVRON PURSUANT TO THE NINTH U.S.A. INC., CIRCUIT’S ORDER OF JUNE 26, 2023 Respondents. Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White

[PROPOSED] ORDER As a compensatory sanction, the Ninth Circuit ordered attorney Edward Chung to reimburse Respondents for their attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Mr. Chung’s filing of a fabricated newspaper article and subsequent proceedings. Dkt. 186. Pursuant to Circuit Rule 39-1.8, the Ninth Circuit transferred to this Court the determination of the appropriate award of attorneys’ fees. □□□ at 3. Respondents have submitted attorney declarations and supporting evidence for an award of $251,313.72 in fees. The Court finds both that Respondents have satisfied their burden of proof to justify the requested fees, and that Respondents’ fees are reasonable. See United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court further concludes that Respondents are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest based on the prime rate because “awarding Defendants interest based on the prime rate . . . will adequately compensate Defendants for the time value of the money they had tied up in this litigation.” Amphastar Pharms. Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, Case No. 5:09-CV-00023-SHK, 2020 WL 8680070, at *30 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020); see also In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The district court has discretion to compensate delay in payment in one of two ways: (1) by applying the attorneys’ current rates to all hours billed during the course of the litigation; or (2) by using the attorneys’ historical rates and adding a prime rate enhancement.” (citation omitted)). The Court adopts the prejudgment interest calculations set forth in paragraphs 7 to 15 of the Declaration of Anne Champion and awards Respondents an additional } $16,970.13 in prejudgment interest. Respondents’ motion is accordingly GRANTED. Mr. Chung shall pay Respondents $268,283.85, representing $251,313.72 in fees plus $16,970.13 in prejudgment interest. DATED: October 24 —__, 2023 Hoff Je&tr hite United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALEED AL-QARQANI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-03297-JSW Petitioners, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS A COMPENSATORY SANCTION CHEVRON CORPORATION and CHEVRON PURSUANT TO THE NINTH U.S.A. INC., CIRCUIT’S ORDER OF JUNE 26, 2023 Respondents. Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White

[PROPOSED] ORDER As a compensatory sanction, the Ninth Circuit ordered attorney Edward Chung to reimburse Respondents for their attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Mr. Chung’s filing of a fabricated newspaper article and subsequent proceedings. Dkt. 186. Pursuant to Circuit Rule 39-1.8, the Ninth Circuit transferred to this Court the determination of the appropriate award of attorneys’ fees. □□□ at 3. Respondents have submitted attorney declarations and supporting evidence for an award of $251,313.72 in fees. The Court finds both that Respondents have satisfied their burden of proof to justify the requested fees, and that Respondents’ fees are reasonable. See United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court further concludes that Respondents are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest based on the prime rate because “awarding Defendants interest based on the prime rate . . . will adequately compensate Defendants for the time value of the money they had tied up in this litigation.” Amphastar Pharms. Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, Case No. 5:09-CV-00023-SHK, 2020 WL 8680070, at *30 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020); see also In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The district court has discretion to compensate delay in payment in one of two ways: (1) by applying the attorneys’ current rates to all hours billed during the course of the litigation; or (2) by using the attorneys’ historical rates and adding a prime rate enhancement.” (citation omitted)). The Court adopts the prejudgment interest calculations set forth in paragraphs 7 to 15 of the Declaration of Anne Champion and awards Respondents an additional } $16,970.13 in prejudgment interest. Respondents’ motion is accordingly GRANTED. Mr. Chung shall pay Respondents $268,283.85, representing $251,313.72 in fees plus $16,970.13 in prejudgment interest. DATED: October 24 —__, 2023 Hoff Je&tr hite United States District Judge

Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation (Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

In Re Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation. Class Chemical Bank, in Its Representative Capacity as Trustee for Bondholders, and Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Specthrie & Lerach Molloy, Jones & Donahue, P.C. v. City of Seattle Oregon Public Entities, Benton Rural Electric Association, Washington Washington Public Power Supply System R.W. Beck and Associates Ebasco Services Incorporated United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Director Participants' Committee Public Utility District No. 1, of Klickitat County United States of America, on Behalf of Itself and Its Agency, the Bonneville Power Administration State of Washington Bonneville Power Administration, Class and Lawrence Laub v. Continental Assurance Company v. City of Seattle Oregon Public Entities, Benton Rural Electric Association, Washington Washington Public Power Supply System R.W. Beck and Associates Ebasco Services Incorporated United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Director Participants' Committee Public Utility District No. 1, of Klickitat County United States of America, on Behalf of Itself and Its Agency, the Bonneville Power Administration State of Washington Bonneville Power Administration, Class and Continental Assurance Company v. Berger & Montague, P.A. v. City of Seattle Oregon Public Entities, Benton Rural Electric Association, Washington Washington Public Power Supply System R.W. Beck and Associates Ebasco Services Incorporated United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Director Participants' Committee Public Utility District No. 1, of Klickitat County United States of America, on Behalf of Itself and Its Agency, the Bonneville Power Administration State of Washington Bonneville Power Administration

19 F.3d 1291 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency

802 F.3d 1100 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)

Opinion

Related