(PS) Malik v. Iqbal ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MUHAMMAD YOUNAS MALIK, No. 2:23-cv-1462 DJC DB PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NAZIA JABEEN IQBAL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Muhammad Younas Malik was proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was 18 referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 On July 14, 2023, the assigned District Judge remanded this matter to the Yolo County Superior 20 Court. (ECF No. 7.) On August 21, 2023, defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant 21 to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) and noticed the motion for hearing before the undersigned. (ECF No. 8-1 22 at 3.) Defendant’s motion was taken under submission on October 11, 2023. (ECF No. 11.) 23 Local Rule 293 states that “[a]ll motions for awards of attorneys’ fees pursuant to statute 24 shall, at a minimum, include an affidavit showing . . . the information pertaining to each of the 25 criteria set forth in [Local Rule 293] (c).” Local Rule 293(c) requires that the court consider: 26 (1) the time and labor required of the attorney(s); 27 (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; 28 (3) the skill required to perform the legal service properly; 1 (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney(s) because of the acceptance of the action; 2 (5) the customary fee charged in matters of the type involved; 3 (6) whether the fee contracted between the attorney and the client is 4 fixed or contingent; 5 (7) any time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; 6 (8) the amount of money, or the value of the rights involved, and the results obtained; 4 (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney (s); 8 (10) the “undesirability” of the action; 9 (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between 10 the attorney and the client; 11 (12) awards in similar actions; and 12 (13) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate under the circumstances. 13 14 Here, the declaration submitted in support of defendant’s motion does not address all the 15 | criteria stated above. (ECF No. 8-2 at 1-3.) “Failure to comply with the local rule governing the 16 | filing of motions for attorney’s fees is a reason for denial of the motion.” Johnson v. Wells Fargo 17 | Bank N.A., No. 2:10-cv-2839 GEB CKD, 2013 WL 4854790, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2013); 18 | see also Vang v. Lopey, No. 2:16-cv-2172 JAM CMK, 2017 WL 6055771, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19 | 7, 2017) (“The Court also denied the County’s request for attorney’s fees twice, most recently 20 | based on the County’s noncompliance with Local Rule 293(b).”). 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s August 21, 2023 motion for 22 | attorney’s fees (ECF No. 8) is denied without prejudice to renewal.! 23 || Dated: December 29, 2023 24 25 26 DLB:6 ORAH BARNES DB/orders/orders.pro se/malik1462.fee.den.ord UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE TUDGE 27 ' Tn the event defendant files a renewed motion defendant shall including billing statements in 28 | support of the motion.