Opinion
No. 2:13-cv-02499 JAM AC
12-19-2016
JAMES JOSHUA MAYFIELD, JAMES ALLISON MAYFIELD, JR., and TERRI MAYFIELD, Plaintiffs, v. IVAN OROZCO, SHERIFF SCOTTJONES, JAMES LEWIS, RICKPATTISON, COUNTY OFSACRAMENTO, UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA DAVISHEALTHSYSTEM, DR. GREGORYSOKOLOV, DR. ROBERT HALS, and Does 1-5, Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiffs have filed two motions for attorneys fees, one against County defendants and one against UC Davis defendants, both noticed for hearing on December 19, 2016. Having reviewed the moving papers, oppositions and replies, the court notes that the parties have failed to establish the relevant rate in the Eastern District of California or a basis for deviating from that rate as required by Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (2008), instead addressing only the rates charged by plaintiffs in similar cases without reference to this community's rates. See also Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Assoc. v. California Dept. of Education, 2016 WL 4375015 at 13 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016); Lehr v. City of Sacramento, 2013 WL 13286549 at *4 (E.D. Cal. April 2, 2013).
In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The December 21, 2016 hearing on plaintiff's Motion for Reasonable Expenses and Sanctions (ECF No. 160) and Motion for Reasonable Expenses (ECF No. 161) is VACATED;DATED: December 19, 2016
2. The parties shall file simultaneous Supplemental Briefs, addressing the appropriate rate to be applied in this case, within 21 days of this Order;
3. The parties may each file a Reply Memorandum 7 days thereafter.
/s/_________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE