H.W. et al v Eastern Sierra Unified School District, et al, No. 2:2011cv00531 - Document 59 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/16/12: Findings and Recommendations filed September 27, 2012, are ADOPTED. Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees filed May 8, 2012 50 , is granted in the amount of $44,650 to be apportioned to each plaintiff in direct proportion to the amount of damages awarded to each plaintiff, against defaulted defendant Carlisle only. This fee award offsets the attorneys' fees previously awarded by the district court on May 22, 2012. Any 42 U.S.C. §1988 fees actually recovered from defendant Carlisle shall be deducted from the contingency fee. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
H.W. et al v Eastern Sierra Unified School District, et al Doc. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 H.W., minor, by and through Guardian ad Litem HEIDI NELSON; and M.K., minor, by and through Guardian ad Litem ROBERT KOELLING, 12 Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-11-0531 GEB GGH 13 vs. 14 15 EASTERN SIERRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 __________________________________/ 18 ORDER On September 27, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 19 herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 21 Accordingly, the court presumes any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 22 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 23 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 24 1983). 25 26 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Findings and Recommendations in full. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendations filed September 27, 2012, are ADOPTED and 3 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988, filed May 8, 4 2012, (dkt. no. 50), is granted in the amount of $44,650 to be apportioned to each plaintiff in 5 direct proportion to the amount of damages awarded to each plaintiff, against defaulted defendant 6 Carlisle only; 7 8 9 2. This fee award offsets the attorneys’ fees previously awarded by the district court on May 22, 2012; and 3. Any 42 U.S.C. §1988 fees actually recovered from defendant Carlisle shall be 10 deducted from the contingency fee. 11 Dated: October 16, 2012 12 13 14 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
