Opinion
2:23-cv-01540 WBS DMC
10-20-2023
JOSE ARELLANO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, a corporation; SMUCKER NATURAL FOODS, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER NATURAL FOODS, LLC, a limited liability company; SMUCKER FOODSERVICE, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER FRUIT PROCESSING CO., a corporation; SMUCKER RETAIL FOODS, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a corporation; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY LLC, a limited liability company; FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., a corporation; SMUCKER FRUIT PROCESSING COMPANY, a corporation; TRUROOTS, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The court has reviewed Smucker Defendants' declaration of costs and fees incurred to oppose plaintiff's ex parte application. (Davoudian Decl. (Docket No. 24).) Smucker Defendants report total costs and fees of $16,152. (Id.) For purposes of this Order, the court makes the following adjustments to Smucker Defendants' calculation of costs and fees.
Research and drafting.
Mr. Payer billed nine hours at an hourly rate of $580 for researching, drafting, revising, and finalizing the opposition to the ex parte application. (Davoudian Decl. ¶ 4.) The opposition motion does not address a complicated set of facts, nor does it involve any legal issues requiring extensive research. (See generally Opp'n (Docket No. 20).) Accordingly, the court will adjust downward the number of hours to be reimbursed from nine to four, which equals a reduction of $2,900 applied to the total costs and fees.
The court will not question the hourly rate billed by Smucker Defendants' attorneys at this time.
Travel time and expenses.
Smucker Defendants' costs and fees related to drafting and arguing the opposition were occasioned by plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's rules. (See generally Order (Docket No. 23).) However, although the court does not question that Smucker Defendants' travel costs were incurred to oppose plaintiff's application, they were occasioned by the court's decision, for good reason, to hold a live hearing in Sacramento rather than by Zoom. Accordingly, the court will not require plaintiff to indemnify defendants for their travel expenses as a condition of allowing plaintiff to file its opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, which further reduces the recoverable costs and fees by $5,582.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff SHALL indemnify Smucker Defendants in the amount of $7,670 and file its opposition to Smucker Defendants' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 10), both within ten days of the issuance of this Order.