(PC) Taylor v. Commissioner of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRESTON TAYLOR, No. 1:20-cv-00798-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (ECF No. 122) 14 COMMISSIONER OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 15 CORRECTIONS AND FOR ATTORNEY FEES REHABILITATION, et al., 16 (ECF No. 116) Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 20 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 15, 2023, the parties submitted a stipulation consented to United 21 States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 124.) The case was therefore reassigned to 22 Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on December 21, 2023, for all purposes. (ECF No. 125.) 23 On October 31, 2023, Findings and Recommendations were issued to grant Plaintiff’s 24 motion for attorney fees, which have not been ruled on by a District Judge. (ECF No. 122.) As 25 noted above, all parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Accordingly, the 26 Findings and Recommendations will be vacated and Plaintiff’s motion is now before the 27 undersigned for ruling. 28 /// 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND 3 On July 27, 2023, the parties reached a settlement agreement which was placed on the 4 record, and the parties were directed to file dispositional documents within thirty days, i.e., on or 5 before August 28, 2023. (ECF No. 107, 109.) After the parties failed to timely file the 6 dispositional documents, the Court issued an order to show cause on September 5, 2023. (ECF 7 No. 110.) Defendant filed a response on September 7, 2023, and Plaintiff filed a response on 8 September 8, 2023. (ECF Nos. 111, 112.) The parties submitted that the dispositional documents 9 were not filed because they were in discussions as to the appropriate language regarding 10 attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id.) 11 On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 12 116.) Defendant filed a response on October 18, 2023. (ECF No. 121.) 13 II. 14 DISCUSSION 15 On April 12, 2021, Plaintiff Taylor retained PLC Law Group, APC to represent him in 16 this lawsuit. (Declaration of Na’Shaun L. Neal (Neal Decl.) ¶ 2.) Plaintiff entered into a 17 contingency agreement where he agreed to pay for the services of PLC Law Group, APC if he 18 successfully recovers any proceeds. The attorney fee was 40% of the total recovery. (Neal Decl. ¶ 19 2.) Plaintiff also agreed to pay cost. (Neal Decl. ¶ 2.) 20 On July 27, 2023, Plaintiff agreed with Defendant to settle this litigation in the amount of 21 $12,500. (Neal Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff now seeks a Court order for reasonable attorney fees and cost 22 pursuant to Plaintiff’s retainer agreement with PLC Law Group, APC. Plaintiff’s requested 23 attorney fees is $5,000. 24 Plaintiff’s request recovery of advance cost is $3,728.15. Plaintiff’s counsel exhausted 25 163 hours on this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel billable rate for the attorneys on this matter are $500 26 (Jr. Associate) and $750 (Sr. Associate). 27 When calculating an award of attorneys’ fees, a district court generally uses the “lodestar” 28 method. See Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., 224 F.3d 1014, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 1 | Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 1996) and Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, 2 | Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)). The lodestar is calculated by multiplying the number of 3 | hours counsel worked by a reasonable hourly rate. See Caudle, 224 F.3d at 1028-29. After 4 | computing the lodestar, the district court assesses whether additional considerations require 5 | adjusting the figure. Id. 6 Here, counsels for Plaintiff expended 163 hours on this case through July 2023, resulting 7 | in $91.500.00 attorney fees. (ECF No. 116-1 at 3-4.) However, Plaintiff only seeks an order for 8 | attorney fees in the amount of $5,000 (40% of $12,500 per retainer agreement), and $3,728.15 in 9 | costs, totaling $8,728.15. Defendants agrees to Plaintiff’s motion seeking $8,728.15 per the 10 | settlement agreement. (ECF No. 121.) 11 Per the terms of the settlement agreement and the reasonableness of Plaintiff's counsel’s 12 | attorneys’ fees and costs, Plaintiff's motion shall be granted pursuant to California Penal section 13 | 2085.8(a). 14 I. 15 ORDER 16 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 31, 2023 (ECF No. 122) 18 are VACATED; 19 2. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees and costs filed on October 10, 2023 (ECF No. 20 116) is granted in the amount of $8.728.15; and 21 3. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, the parties shall 22 submit a joint stipulation for dismissal of the action. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. ee 25 | Dated: _ December 22, 2023 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28