From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Armstrong v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 5, 2011
Case No. C94 2307 CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. C94 2307 CW

10-05-2011

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

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 MICHAEL W. BIEN - 096891 ERNEST GALVAN - 196065 GAY CROSTHWAIT GRUNFELD - 121944 ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP


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

MICHAEL W. BIEN - 096891

ERNEST GALVAN - 196065

GAY CROSTHWAIT GRUNFELD - 121944

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RESOLVING CERTAIN DISPUTED ATTORNEY'S FEES FROM THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2011

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

On July 29, 2011, the Court approved the parties' Stipulated Order confirming Plaintiffs' entitlement to undisputed attorney's fees and costs for the first quarter of 2011. See Docket No. 1909. In that order, the parties preserved their dispute over "the time spent by Plaintiffs to litigate the pending rates dispute[.]" Id., 2:8-9.

Plaintiffs prevailed in rate the dispute. On August 8, 2011 the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel compensation at their counsel's reasonable 2010 hourly rates (Docket No. 1919). Accordingly, the parties agree that Plaintiffs' counsel shall now be compensated for the work done in the first quarter of 2011 to litigate that motion.

The parties agree to the payment of $114,289.00 for Plaintiffs' fee collection activities related to the dispute over hourly rates in the first quarter of 2011. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a chart setting forth the undisputed hours and rates. Remaining in dispute is the difference between Plaintiffs' 2010 and 2011 rates for hours incurred in Quarter One of 2011.

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 run from May 23, 2011, accruing at the rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE HONORABLE CLAUDIA WILKEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Scott J. Feudale

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney for Defendants

Kenneth M. Walczak

Rosen, Bien & Galvan, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


Summaries of

Armstrong v. Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Oct 5, 2011
Case No. C94 2307 CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 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: Oct 5, 2011

Citations

Case No. C94 2307 CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011)