Martinez De Maldonado v. I.C. System, Inc. ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEYSE MARTINEZ DE MALDONADO, ) Case No.: 1:23-cv-0186 JLT BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN 13 v. ) PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 14 I.C. SYSTEM, INC., ) ) (Docs. 11, 20) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 Deyse Martinez de Maldanado sought to hold I.C. System, Inc., liable for violations of the Fair 18 Debt Collections Practices Act, California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and Cal. 19 Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1280, et. seq. (See Doc. 1-3 at 4-7.) Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s offer of 20 judgment, which included a provision for “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in an amount either 21 agreed by the parties or determined by the Court.” (Doc. 9 at 2; see also id. at 6.) Plaintiff now moves 22 for fees and costs. (Doc. 11.) 23 The assigned magistrate judge found the hourly rates requested for work in this action exceeded 24 those typically awarded in the Eastern District and recommended the rates to be reduced to be within 25 the range of reasonable fees in this forum. (Doc. 20 at 6-9.) In addition, the magistrate judge found 26 Plaintiff included clerical tasks, for which fees should not be awarded, in the billing records and 27 recommended the time be deducted from the fee award. (Id. at 9-12.) With the proposed adjustments 28 to the hourly rates and billed time, the magistrate judge recommended fees be awarded in the modified 1 || amount of $6,522.50. (Ud. at 14.) The magistrate judge found a multiplier was not warranted after 2 || considering the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526, F.2d 6 3 || 69-70 (9th Cir. 1975), and recommended the Court decline to apply a multiplier to the fee award. (Ud 4 ||) at 12-13.) The magistrate judge also found that the requested costs “were reasonably incurred and 5 || recoverable,” and recommended costs be awarded in the amount of $592.32. (Id. at 15.) 6 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them any 7 || objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 20 at 15.) The Court advised the parties that the failure to 8 || file objections within this specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. (/d. at 16, citing 9 || Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed 10 || objections, and the time to do so has passed. ll According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 13 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated March 13, 2024 (Doc. 20) are ADOPTED 15 in full. 16 2. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (Doc. 11) is GRANTED in part. 17 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED the modified amount of $7,114.82, including fees in the 18 amount of $6,522.50 and costs in the amount of $592.32. 19 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 |! Dated: _March 28, 2024 ( LAW pA LU. wan 22 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28