Estate of Sherrano Stingley v. County of Sacramento
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF SHERRANO STINGLEY, et No. 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC al., 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 18 The Court reviewed Defendants’ Response and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for 19 attorney’s fees incurred in responding to Defendants’ Request for Reconsideration of the 20 Magistrate Judge’s September 27, 2023 Order (ECF No. 32) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure (“Rule”) 72(a). (ECF No. 57.) 22 As set forth in the Court’s May 9, 2024 Order, the Court finds Defendants’ Rule 72(a) 23 objections were meritless and the fees Plaintiffs incurred in responding to Defendants’ Rule 72(a) 24 objections are compensable under Rule 37. (ECF No. 53.) Furthermore, the Court finds 25 Defendants’ Rule 72(a) objections were not substantially justified because there was no “genuine 26 dispute” as to any of the issues raised, and reasonable people could not differ as to the 27 appropriateness of the objections. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). 28 1 Finally, with regards to the amount of fees sought, the Court calculates those fees pursuant 2 || to the lodestar method. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir.2008). 3 | Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental affidavit and billing records, showing $3,675 in attorney’s 4 | fees associated with responding to Defendants’ Rule 72(a) objections. (ECF No. 33-1 at 3.) 5 || Defendants do not object to the rates sought by Plaintiffs, or the reasonableness of the hours 6 || expended. As such, this aspect of Plaintiffs’ request is unopposed. See Local Rule 7—2(d); Local 7 | Rule 54-16(d). The Court also reviewed the materials submitted and finds the attorney's fees 8 || sought to be reasonable. 9 Accordingly, the Court AWARDS $3,675 to Plaintiffs. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Date: June 11, 2024 12 ry /) 1S “ \/ fb 14 a WN Troy L. Nunley» } 15 United States District Judge 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
Estate of Sherrano Stingley v. County of Sacramento (Estate of Sherrano Stingley v. County of Sacramento) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.