Stampfli v. Susanville Sanitary District

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01566
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 DEBORAH STAMPFLI, an individual, No. 2:20-cv-01566 WBS DMC 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES1 15 SUSANVILLE SANITARY DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the 16 State of California; STEVE J. STUMP, in his individual and 17 official capacities; JOHN MURRAY, in his individual and 18 official capacities; ERNIE PETERS, in his individual and 19 official capacities; DAVID FRENCH, in his individual and 20 official capacities; KIM ERB, in his individual and official 21 capacities; MARTY HEATH, in his individual and official 22 capacities; DOES I-V, inclusive; BLACK & WHITE CORPORATIONS I-V; 23 and ABLE & BAKER COMPANIES, inclusive, 24 Defendants. 25 26

27 1 The motion is decided on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). The scheduled January 6, 28 2025 hearing on the motion is hereby VACATED. 1 ----oo0oo---- 2 On May 16, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this 3 court’s order, which denied qualified immunity to defendant Steve 4 Stump and granted plaintiff’s request for partial summary 5 judgment. (Docket No. 136.) The Ninth Circuit also granted 6 plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal, but 7 denied her request for attorney’s fees incurred in the district 8 court without prejudice to seeking those fees before this court. 9 (Docket No. 152.) Plaintiff now requests both the attorney’s 10 fees incurred on appeal and those incurred in the district court 11 up to this point in the litigation. (Docket No. 154.) 12 I. District Court Fees 13 It is premature to address attorney’s fees incurred in 14 the district court as the dispositive motion deadline has not 15 even passed, nor has there been a final disposition on the 16 merits. The motion appears to presume that plaintiff is a 17 prevailing party. However, neither this court nor the Ninth 18 Circuit has determined that plaintiff is a prevailing party for 19 purposes of attorney’s fees in the district court. 20 This court’s order, which was affirmed by the Ninth 21 Circuit, did not grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on 22 the procedural due process claim; rather, the order granted 23 partial summary judgment, concluding only that plaintiff was not 24 an at-will employee and had procedural due process protections. 25 (Docket No. 113.) This limited finding did not “[alter] the 26 legal relationship of the parties” and certainly does not 27 constitute a “judgment on the merits” entitling plaintiff to 28 attorney’s fees. See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. 1 Virginia Dep’t of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001). 2 Because plaintiff has not acquired prevailing party 3 status, the request for fees incurred in the district court will 4 be denied. Plaintiff may renew her request for district court 5 fees at the appropriate time if and when the issue of attorneys’ 6 fees in this court becomes ripe. 7 II. Ninth Circuit Fees 8 The fees incurred on appeal are appropriate to address 9 at this stage given the Ninth Circuit’s order, which instructed 10 this court to determine the reasonable amount of plaintiff’s 11 attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal. (Docket No. 152.) However, 12 this issue is separate from the issue of district court fees 13 discussed above. Prevailing party status on appeal is based on 14 the relative success of the appellate litigation, see Corder v. 15 Gates, 104 F.3d 247, 248–50 (9th Cir. 1996), while prevailing 16 party status in the district court depends on whether relief on 17 the merits has been awarded, see Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 605. 18 While plaintiff has not achieved prevailing party 19 status at the district court level, she was the prevailing party 20 on appeal. Accordingly, the only attorneys’ fees she is entitled 21 to at this juncture are fees incurred in defending defendants’ 22 appeal before the Ninth Circuit. Yet plaintiff’s motion 23 commingles the requests for fees incurred in both courts. The 24 billing records provided fail to differentiate between hours 25 incurred in the district court, hours incurred in the appellate 26 court, and hours incurred in preparing the fees motion. It is 27 not up to the court to scrutinize plaintiff’s billing records 28 line by line in an attempt to discern which items are relevant to nee nee NEE EEE IIE I OSI INE OSISSSS! ESE IO

1 the request for appellate fees. 2 Accordingly, the request for fees incurred on appeal 3 | will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a new 4 request for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal that provides 5 argument and documentation addressing only the appellate fees. 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for 7 | attorney’s fees (Docket No. 154) be, and the same hereby is, 8 DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. oh btem A (hi. fF 9 | Dated: December 17, 2024 WILLIAMB SHUBB........— 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28