Maxwell v. Pacione

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN MAXWELL, Case No. 1:24-cv-00409-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS MODIFIED 14 LISA PACIONE, et al., (Docs. 53, 62, 65) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Shawn Maxwell, proceeding pro se, initiated this action with the filing of a complaint on 18 April 5, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On October 10, 2024, the Court dismissed claims against David Leon, 19 granted his request for fees under anti-SLAPP, and directed Leon to file any request for fees, 20 supported by declarations and records, within 14 days. (Doc. 52.) On October 17, 2024, 21 Defendant filed his motion for fees. (Doc. 53.) When counsel for Defendant did not file billing 22 records with the motion for fees, on December 12, 2024, the Court ordered counsel to file them. 23 (Doc. 61.) Counsel did so. (Doc. 62.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On January 14, 2025, 24 the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations granting the motion. (Doc. 25 65.) 26 In the Findings and Recommendations, the assigned magistrate judge found that counsel 27 for Defendant was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees but recommended a reduction in the requested award given that counsel for Defendant’s billing records included vague entries. Id. at 1 | 7. The assigned magistrate judge calculated the lodestar figure for attorney’s fees as $9,844 and 2 | declined to adjust it upwards or downwards, as Defendant did not request adjustment of the 3 | lodestar and Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Jd. at 10. 4 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 5 | any objections were due within 14 days. /d at 10-11. The Court advised the parties that the 6 | “failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights 7 | on appeal.” Zd., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014). 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 9 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 10 || are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued January 14, 2025 (Doc. 65), are 12 ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Plaintiff's motion for fees (Docs. 53, 62) is GRANTED in the modified amount of 14 $9,844. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: _ February 6, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28