Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 13, 2020
• Docket: 5:04-cv-03946
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 JOSEPH PADGETT, et al., 8 Case No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT v. WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR 10 MODIFY BUSTAMANTE’S BRIAN LOVENTHAL, et al., PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 1244 g

13 Defendant A. Curtis Wright challenges Joseph Padgett’s (“Padgett”) former attorneys’,

14 || Bustamante & Gagliasso (“Bustamante”), application for and renewal of judgment. Having © 3 15 || considered the Parties’ briefs, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the A 16 || proposed renewed judgment.'

(«17 I. BACKGROUND

18 In 2004, Padgett sued eight defendants for alleged civil rights violations. After a jury trial, 19 || Padgett received $1 in nominal damages and $200,000 in punitive damages, which the Court 20 || reduced to $10,000. Padgett thus received $10,001 in damages. 21 In 2010, Judge Ware, the judge who presided over this case before he retired, awarded 22 || Padgett $500,000 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Dkt. 995 at 8. After an appeal, 23 || the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded this award because Judge Ware’s order did not provide an 24 || explanation of the fees. Padgett v. Loventhal, 706 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 2013). 25 26 || 5 □□ Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), this Court found this motion suitable for consideration 27 || without oral argument. See Dkt. 1250. Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD 28 || ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY BUSTAMANTE’S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT

1 On remand, in March 2015, this Court awarded the Kallis and Bustamante law firms 2 || attorney fees of $471,056.64 and $100,000. Dkt. 1087 at 14. Padgett appealed this order on April 3 28, 2015. Dkt. 1090. He contested this Court’s decision to grant fees directly to the law firms. 4 || Padgett v. City of Monte Sereno, 722 F. App’x 608, 610 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit 5 || vacated this Court’s 2015 award of attorney fees because “attorney fees belong to the plaintiff 6 || absent contractual provisions to the contrary or an attorney lien.” /d. On October 7, 2019, this 7 || Court reinstated its 2015 award of fees and costs after findings that the Parties’ “fee agreement 8 dictates that the disbursement of. . . fees and litigation costs go to... Bustamante.” Order 9 || Granting Award of Fees and Costs to Law Firms at 6, Dkt. 1201. Subsequently, Padgett filed an 10 || appeal. Dkt. 1208. 11 On January 14, 2020, Bustamante served Defendant with an Application for and Renewal 12 || of Judgment. See Dkt. 1230. The Clerk’s Office rejected that application on the grounds that one 13 of the documents that Bustamante sought to renew did not entitle it to relief. See Dkt. 1232. Ina 14 || separate order, the Court clarified the attorneys’ fees and costs owed and how they should factor 3 15 into any proposed renewal of judgment. See Order re Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application for the a 16 || Renewal of Judgment (“Renewal Order’), Dkt. 1234. The Court determined that Bustamante may 3 17 || seek to renew a judgment of $393,468.29 (the $100,000 owed in costs and the $293,468.29 owed 18 in attorneys’ fees). /d. at 4. Thereafter, Bustamante filed another Application for and Renewal of 19 || Judgment in the amount of $393,468.29—this request was granted by the Clerk’s Office on 20 January 22, 2020. See Dkt. 1236, 1238. 21 Defendant argues that the Renewal of Judgment claims an inflated amount of interest. 22 || Defendant A. Curtis Wright’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to 23 || Vacate or Modify Proposed Renewed Judgment (“Mot.”), Dkt. 1244. On March 5, 2020, 24 || Bustamante filed an opposition. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of 25 || Bustamante’s Opposition to Curtis Wright’s Motion to Vacate (“Opp.”), Dkt. 1245. Defendant 26 || filed a reply on March 12, 2020. Defendant A. Curtis Wright’s Reply in Support of Motion to a Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD 28 || ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY BUSTAMANTE’S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT

1 Vacate or Modify Proposed Renewed Judgment of Bustamante (“Reply”), Dkt. 1247. 2 3 Il. DISCUSSION 4 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 5 (1990) govern the calculation of post-judgment interest. Planned Parenthood of 6 Columbia/Willamette Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activities, 518 F.3d 1013, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 Section 1961 provides for the mandatory award of post-judgment interest on “any money 8 || judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.” Post-judgment interest must run from the 9 || date of the first judgment when the damages were “supported by the evidence” and meaningfully 10 || ascertained. See Kaiser, 494 U.S. at 835-36. Appellate courts may reverse and remand a district 11 court’s judgment without concluding that the judgment was “erroneous or unsupported by the 12 || evidence.” Planned Parenthood, 518 F.3d at 1018. Thus, when an appellate court reverses and 13 || remands a district court’s grant of damages or fees, it is possible that the district court’s initial 14 || judgment will be used to calculate interest. Indeed, when the legal and evidentiary basis of an 3 15 award is preserved, post-judgment interest is ordinarily “computed from the date of [the a 16 || judgment’s] initial entry.” Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 487 F.2d 672, 676 (9th Cir. 1973). 3 17 || If, however, the damages were not meaningfully ascertained in the initial judgment, then the 18 || remand judgment is used. See Planned Parenthood, 518 F.3d at 1017-18. 19 Defendant argues that the interest accrual date is March 31, 2015—the date that this Court 20 || re-awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s remand. See Mot. at 21 4. Bustamante argues that the interest accrual date is June 9, 2010—the date that Judge Ware 22 || originally awarded Padgett attorneys’ fees and costs. Opp .at 2. Bustamante applies the wrong 23 standard; the Court agrees with Defendant that the interest accrual date is March 31, 2015. The 24 || Ninth Circuit remanded Judge Ware’s 2010 grant of attorneys’ fees after determining that Judge 25 || Ware failed to meaningfully ascertain and explain his award of fees and costs. See Padgett, 706 26 || F.3d at 1209 (holding that Judge Ware failed to “show his work” and offered no explanation as to a Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD 28 || ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY BUSTAMANTE’S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT

1 || how he calculated the attorneys’ fees and costs). Indeed, on remand, after analyzing the relevant 2 factors, this Court altered the amount of fees owed. Hence, because the damages were not 3 || meaningfully ascertained in the initial 2010 grant of attorneys’ fees, the date of accrual of interest 4 || cannot be the date of the original judgment. Planned Parenthood, 518 F.3d at 1019. For this 5 || reason, the date of accrual of interest is the Court’s March 2015 Order granting attorneys’ fees and 6 costs. 7 I. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to alter Bustamante’s Application for and 9 || Renewal of Judgment is GRANTED. Interest shall accrue from the Court’s March 2015 Order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: May 13, 2020 a 2 EDWARD J. DAVILA 13 United States District Judge

(«44

(«17

2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case No.: 5:04-cv-03946-EJD 28 || ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WRIGHT’S MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY BUSTAMANTE’S PROPOSED RENEWED JUDGMENT