Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation

N.D. California

Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation

DecidedOctober 24, 2023

Docket4:18-cv-03297

StatusUnknown

This text of Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation (Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 WALEED AL-QARQANI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-03297-JSW 12 Petitioners, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS A COMPENSATORY SANCTION 14 CHEVRON CORPORATION and CHEVRON PURSUANT TO THE NINTH U.S.A. INC., CIRCUIT’S ORDER OF JUNE 26, 15 2023 Respondents. 16 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White 17 18

24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 As a compensatory sanction, the Ninth Circuit ordered attorney Edward Chung to reimburse 3 || 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 5 || Circuit transferred to this Court the determination of the appropriate award of attorneys’ fees. □□□ at 3. 7 Respondents have submitted attorney declarations and supporting evidence for an award of 8 || $251,313.72 in fees. The Court finds both that Respondents have satisfied their burden of proof to 9 || justify the requested fees, and that Respondents’ fees are reasonable. See United States v. $28,000.00 10 || in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2015). 11 The Court further concludes that Respondents are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest 12 || based on the prime rate because “awarding Defendants interest based on the prime rate . . . will 13 || 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 15 || 8680070, at *30 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020); see also In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 16 || 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The district court has discretion to compensate delay in 17 || payment in one of two ways: (1) by applying the attorneys’ current rates to all hours billed during the 18 || course of the litigation; or (2) by using the attorneys’ historical rates and adding a prime rate 19 || enhancement.” (citation omitted)). The Court adopts the prejudgment interest calculations set forth in 20 || paragraphs 7 to 15 of the Declaration of Anne Champion and awards Respondents an additional 21 |} $16,970.13 in prejudgment interest. 22 Respondents’ motion is accordingly GRANTED. Mr. Chung shall pay Respondents 23 || $268,283.85, representing $251,313.72 in fees plus $16,970.13 in prejudgment interest. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27|| DATED: October 24 —__, 2023 Hoff Je&tr hite 28 United States District Judge

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OAKLAND DIVISION 11 WALEED AL-QARQANI, et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-03297-JSW 12 Petitioners, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS A COMPENSATORY SANCTION 14 CHEVRON CORPORATION and CHEVRON PURSUANT TO THE NINTH U.S.A. INC., CIRCUIT’S ORDER OF JUNE 26, 15 2023 Respondents. 16 Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White 17 18

24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER 2 As a compensatory sanction, the Ninth Circuit ordered attorney Edward Chung to reimburse 3 || 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 5 || Circuit transferred to this Court the determination of the appropriate award of attorneys’ fees. □□□ at 3. 7 Respondents have submitted attorney declarations and supporting evidence for an award of 8 || $251,313.72 in fees. The Court finds both that Respondents have satisfied their burden of proof to 9 || justify the requested fees, and that Respondents’ fees are reasonable. See United States v. $28,000.00 10 || in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2015). 11 The Court further concludes that Respondents are entitled to an award of prejudgment interest 12 || based on the prime rate because “awarding Defendants interest based on the prime rate . . . will 13 || 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 15 || 8680070, at *30 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020); see also In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig., 16 || 19 F.3d 1291, 1305 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The district court has discretion to compensate delay in 17 || payment in one of two ways: (1) by applying the attorneys’ current rates to all hours billed during the 18 || course of the litigation; or (2) by using the attorneys’ historical rates and adding a prime rate 19 || enhancement.” (citation omitted)). The Court adopts the prejudgment interest calculations set forth in 20 || paragraphs 7 to 15 of the Declaration of Anne Champion and awards Respondents an additional 21 |} $16,970.13 in prejudgment interest. 22 Respondents’ motion is accordingly GRANTED. Mr. Chung shall pay Respondents 23 || $268,283.85, representing $251,313.72 in fees plus $16,970.13 in prejudgment interest. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27|| DATED: October 24 —__, 2023 Hoff Je&tr hite 28 United States District Judge

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/al-qarqani-v-chevron-corporation-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack