From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armstrong v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 1, 2011
Case No. C94 2307 CW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C94 2307 CW

11-01-2011

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants.1

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jay C. Russell Deputy Attorney General Attorney for Defendants Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs


DONALD SPECTER - 083925

REBEKAH EVENSON - 207825

PRISON LAW OFFICE

LINDA D. KILB - 136101

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION &

DEFENSE FUND, INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

WARREN E. GEORGE - 053588

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP

Three Embarcadero Center

MICHAEL W. BIEN - 096891

ERNEST GALVAN - 196065

GAY CROSTHWAIT GRUNFELD - 121944

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF

ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THE FIRST

TWO QUARTERS OF 2011 AT 2011 RATES

On April 26, 2011, Plaintiffs served their first quarterly statement of the year and provided Defendants with their 2011 hourly rates. Since service of the first quarterly statement, the parties have met and conferred over the reasonable rate for 2011 work. A motion to compel Plaintiffs' 2011 rates is currently due to be filed with the Court on November 18, 2011. The parties have now agreed upon Plaintiffs' 2011 rates. Pursuant to this agreement, Defendants are ordered to pay the following principal amounts, plus interest for the undisputed 2011 hours:

• $55,091.50 for fees incurred the First Quarter of 2011, for monitoring and fee collection activities in the California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation Division of Adult Operations and Adult Programs (CDCR AOAP), Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), and Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) portions of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit A are charts setting forth the fees payable to Plaintiffs for the difference between the amounts previously ordered at 2010 rates and their 2011 rates for these hours.

• $5,535.00 for fees incurred the First Quarter of 2011, at 2011 rates, for hours ordered at 2010 rates in connection with the Motion to Compel 2010 rates. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a chart setting forth the difference between the amount previously ordered to be paid for this portion of the work at 2010 rates and the amount owed at 2011 rates.

• $74,380.90 for fees incurred during the Second Quarter of 2011, for monitoring and fee collection activities in the California Department of Corrections of Rehabilitation Division of Adult Operations and Adult Programs (CDCR AOAP), Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), and Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) portions of the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are charts setting forth the fees payable to Plaintiffs for the difference between the amounts previously ordered at 2010 rates and their 2011 rates for these hours.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amounts set forth above are due and collectable as of forty-five days from the date of entry of this Order. Interest on these fees and costs will continue to run from the dates set forth in the chart attached as Exhibit D hereto, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (also shown on Exhibit D).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Jay C. Russell

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Defendants

Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld

Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Armstrong v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 1, 2011
Case No. C94 2307 CW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Armstrong v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

Case No. C94 2307 CW (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2011)