Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 07-28-2023
Case Style:
Case Number: 3:21-CV-463
Judge: Rogert T. Benitz
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Dante Pride; Erin Cole; Zachery Avina
Defendant's Attorney: Jennifer Marie Martin
Description: San Diego, California civil rights lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants claiming claiming that his civil rights were violated by the Defendants.
Plaintiff Tyler Astorga brings this action against Defendants the County of San Diego (the “County”) and Kevin Boegler (“Deputy Boegler”).[1] Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. ECF No. 39. The Motion was submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 41. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court cannot determine the number hours accrued and therefore, ORDERS Plaintiff's counsel to file a declaration and billing records as set forth in Part IV.B.
II. BACKGROUND
This case is one of several cases filed in the Southern District pertaining to the Black Lives Matter events that took place on May 30, 2020, in La Mesa, California. See, e.g., Horton v. County of San Diego et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00400-H-BGS; Segura v. City of La Mesa et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00565-JM-MDD; Woolsey v. County of San Diego et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00877-BEN-AHG. The facts of the instant case are referred to in this Court's prior Order, see ECF No. 23, and are not necessary to resolve the instant Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. As such, the Court proceeds to the procedural history.
On March 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed his original Complaint pleading the following claims for relief: (1) excessive force against Deputy Boegler and Does 1 through 50 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and his Fourth Amendment rights; (2) failure to properly train against the County of San Diego pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); (3) battery against Deputy Boegler; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress against Deputy Boegler; (5) violation of the Ralph Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51.7 (the “Ralph Act”), against Deputy Boegler, the County of San Diego, and Does 1 through 25; and (6) violation of the Bane Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (the “Bane Act”), against Deputy Boegler, the County of San Diego, and Does 1 through 25. See ECF No. 1.
On June 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint, which alleges the same causes of action but omits one previously named Defendant. See FAC. On September 9, 2021, the County filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike portions of the FAC. See ECF No. 9. The Court granted-in-part the Motion to Dismiss, allowing Plaintiff's claims under the Ralph Act and Bane Act to proceed and dismissing the Monell claim against the County without prejudice. ECF No. 23.
On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement. ECF No. 36. On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. ECF No. 39 (“Motion”). On December 23, 2022, Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. ECF No. 40 (“Oppo.”).
Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum.
Plaintiff Tyler Astorga brings this action against Defendants the County of San Diego (the “County”) and Kevin Boegler (collectively, “Defendants”). Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. ECF No. 39. The Motion was submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 41. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: