Bissat v. City of Visalia

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 16, 2024
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01649
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RASHID BISSAT, Case No. 1:21-cv-01649-JLT-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO 11 v. F MI OLE T IS OU NP P FL OE RM AE TN TT OA RL N B ER YI ’E S F FI EN EG S RE 12 5 DAY DEADLINE 13 CITY OF VISALIA, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 14 CHARTER CITY, 15 Defendant. 16 _____________________________________/ 17 The undersigned filed an order on March 7, 2024, (Doc. 34) requiring Plaintiff to show 18 cause as to why sanctions should not issue for failing to comply with a previous Court order. In 19 this order, the Court also invited the City of Visalia (the “Defendant”) to file a motion for 20 attorney’s fees. (Id.). Defendant filed their motion on March 15, 2024. (Doc. 35). In their 21 motion, Defendant contends that “[b]ecause sanctions are an appropriate response to the willful 22 disobedience of a court order, an award of reasonable attorney’s fees in the sum of $7,500.99 in 23 favor of Defendant City of Visalia is warranted.” (Doc. 35-1 at 3). This sum represents the total 24 fees incurred throughout the entire case. (See id.). 25 Beyond attaching a summary of their billing records, Defendant does not attempt to 26 delineate which costs directly result from Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders. Instead, 27 Defendant requests that the Court award all the fees they have incurred litigating this case. While 28 1 a Court may do so under egregious circumstances (see Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 581 U.S. 2 101, 102 (2017)), Defendant has not established this is one of those instances. An award of 3 attorney’s fees is intended to be a compensatory award following a “granular inquiry” connecting 4 misconduct and specific expenses. Lu v. United States, 921 F.3d 850, 863 (9th Cir. 2019). 5 Defendant has not undertaken such an inquiry connecting misconduct and specific expenses. 6 Without such substantiation, the undersigned cannot recommend awarding attorney’s fees. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of the entry of this 8 order, Defendant SHALL file supplemental briefing, together with supplemental declarations and 9 spreadsheets, if appropriate, itemizing which costs listed in its billing records can be connected to 10 Plaintiff’s misconduct. Defendant must also demonstrate how the costs are connected to Plaintiff’s 11 misconduct. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 Dated: April 16, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28