Darren Gilbert v. Singh

E.D. California

Darren Gilbert v. Singh

DecidedJanuary 10, 2023

Docket1:21-cv-01338

StatusUnknown

This text of Darren Gilbert v. Singh (Darren Gilbert v. Singh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darren Gilbert v. Singh, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN GILBERT,, Case No. 1:21-cv-01338-AWI-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS 13 v. (Doc. No. 12) 14 PARAMJIT SINGH, individually and doing business as Super Mac Food & Gas SEVEN DAY DEADLINE 15 #2 and ROBBY SINGH, individually doing business as Super Mac Food & Gas 16 #2, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On September 3, 2021, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint against 20 Defendants alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 21 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq; the California Unruh Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.; and 22 California Health & Safety Code §§ 19955, 19959. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). On April 22, 23 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment as to all Defendants. (Doc. No. 12, 24 “Motion”). In addition to damages, Plaintiff moves to recover $4,074.22 in attorney’s fees and 25 costs in accordance with the ADA and the Unruh Act. (Doc. No. 12-1 at 7); see also 42 U.S.C. § 26 12205; Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). In support of Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees, Plaintiff 27 attaches an inventory of time itemizing attorney fees in the amount of $8,446.50 that appears to 28 have been incurred in a different case, not the instant action. (See Doc. No. 12-3 at Exhibit A 1 | referring to the case of Gilbert v. Balahi (Adel’s). This Court has an independent duty to review 2 | an attorney’s request for attorney fees. See Langer v. Baharian, 2020 WL 4904657, *6 (C.D. Cal. 3 | May 20, 2020) (citing Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1401 (9th Cir. 1992)). 4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 5 Within seven (7) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a corrected inventory 6 | of time for the instant action to accurately reflect attorney’s fees for this action. 4 8 Dated: _ January 9, 2023 Kobo Zh foareh Hack 9 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN GILBERT,, Case No. 1:21-cv-01338-AWI-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS 13 v. (Doc. No. 12) 14 PARAMJIT SINGH, individually and doing business as Super Mac Food & Gas SEVEN DAY DEADLINE 15 #2 and ROBBY SINGH, individually doing business as Super Mac Food & Gas 16 #2, 17 Defendants. 18 19 On September 3, 2021, Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint against 20 Defendants alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 21 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq; the California Unruh Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.; and 22 California Health & Safety Code §§ 19955, 19959. (Doc. No. 1, “Complaint”). On April 22, 23 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment as to all Defendants. (Doc. No. 12, 24 “Motion”). In addition to damages, Plaintiff moves to recover $4,074.22 in attorney’s fees and 25 costs in accordance with the ADA and the Unruh Act. (Doc. No. 12-1 at 7); see also 42 U.S.C. § 26 12205; Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a). In support of Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees, Plaintiff 27 attaches an inventory of time itemizing attorney fees in the amount of $8,446.50 that appears to 28 have been incurred in a different case, not the instant action. (See Doc. No. 12-3 at Exhibit A 1 | referring to the case of Gilbert v. Balahi (Adel’s). This Court has an independent duty to review 2 | an attorney’s request for attorney fees. See Langer v. Baharian, 2020 WL 4904657, *6 (C.D. Cal. 3 | May 20, 2020) (citing Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1401 (9th Cir. 1992)). 4 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 5 Within seven (7) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must file a corrected inventory 6 | of time for the instant action to accurately reflect attorney’s fees for this action. 4 8 Dated: _ January 9, 2023 Kobo Zh foareh Hack 9 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Darren Gilbert v. Singh, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darren-gilbert-v-singh-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack