4:10-cv-01564 #128

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

1/42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

William C. McNeill, III, State Bar No. 64392Claudia Center, State Bar No. 158255Elizabeth Kristen, State Bar No. 218227LEGAL AID SOCIETY-EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104Telephone: (415) 864-8848Facsimile: (415) 593-0096Email: [email protected]

[email protected]@las-elc.org

Daniel S. Mason, State Bar No. 54065Patrick Clayton, State Bar No. 240191Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP44 Montgomery St Ste 3400San Francisco, CA 94104Telephone: (415) 693-0700

Facsimile: (415) 693-0770Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND DIVISION)

MICHAEL DRAGOVICH, MICHAELGAITLEY, ELIZABETH LITTERAL,PATRICIA FITZSIMMONS, CAROLYNLIGHT, CHERYL LIGHT, DAVID BEERS,

CHARLES COLE, RAFAEL V. DOMINGUEZ,and JOSE G. HERMOSILLO, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THETREASURY, TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in hisofficial capacity as Secretary of the Treasury,United States Department of the Treasury,INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DOUGLASSHULMAN, in his official capacity as

Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service,BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OFCALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEESRETIREMENT SYSTEM, and ANNESTAUSBOLL, in her official capacity as ChiefExecutive Officer, CalPERS,

Defendants.

Case No. CV 4:10-01564-CW

PLAINTIFFSADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OFMOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE MOTION

FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYSFEES,

COSTS AND EXPENSES AS TO INTERVENER

THE BILATERAL LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE AND

[PROPOSED]ORDER

[Local Rules 6-3]

[Hon. Claudia Wilken]

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document128 Filed06/07/12 Page1 of 5

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

2/42

MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME

AND [PROPOSED]ORDER

Case No. CV 4:10-01564-CW Page 1

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3, the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order extending the

time for them to file a motion for statutory attorneys fees and for litigation costs and expenses.

While the Federal Defendants and the State Defendants have graciously signed a joint stipulation

to this effect, filed herewith, BLAG has been unwilling to sign such a stipulation. Therefore,

plaintiffs have filed this motion with respect to any motion for reasonable attorneys fees, costs

and expenses that they may file against BLAG. Assuming the Court grants plaintiffs extension

requested via stipulation, any motion for attorneys fees, costs and expenses would be filed

regarding all defendants and BLAG on the same day: August 22, 2012.

Reasons for Request

This successful action involved entities from whom prevailing plaintiffs may seek

reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses (attorneys fees) via different statutes such as the

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412 and 42 U.S.C. 1988 (Section 1988).

However, EAJA and Section 1988 provide for two very different time frames within which to

file an attorneys fee motion. EAJA provides that such a motion be filed within thirty days of

final judgment. 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B). Under Ninth Circuit authority, the judgment is

final on the date that a petition for certiorari becomes untimely. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 919,

920 (9th Cir. 2004), citingAl-Harbi v. INS, 284 F.3d 1080, 1083-1085 (9th Cir. 2002).

However, Section 1988 fee motions are governed by the general rule that motions for fees

be filed no later than 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). Because

plaintiffs fee motion under section 1988 and their motion under EAJA will necessarily involve

very similar considerations, such as determinations regarding rates and hours, it is efficient to

have plaintiffs file one motion regarding reasonable fees, costs and expenses sought from all

other parties. However, because of the complexity of the fee motion and the involvement of

multiple entities and at least two separate fee statutes, it has not been possible for plaintiffs

counsel to prepare and file their fee motion within the short time frame provided by the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, as explained further below, and it the attached Declaration

of Elizabeth Kristen,plaintiffs counsel diligently sought a stipulation from all parties beginning

on the day after the Courts final judgment was entered and continuing through June 5, 2012.


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

3/42


AND [PROPOSED]ORDER


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

See Kristen Decl. 4-14 and Exhs. A-H thereto. It was only on June 5, 2012, that it became

clear that BLAG would not stipulate to additional time. Kristen Decl. 14. Plaintiffs counsel

reasonably expected that all parties would agree to stipulate to more time for plaintiffs motion.

Kristen Decl. 15. Therefore, by the time BLAG informed plaintiffs counsel that it would not

stipulate, it was too late to draft and complete an entire fee petition. Id.

Plaintiffs Efforts to Obtain a Stipulation to Relief Sought

Beginning on the day after this Court entered judgment, plaintiffs counsel diligently

sought to have all parties stipulate to additional time. As detailed in the Declaration of Elizabeth

Kristen, plaintiffs counsel emailed defendants and interveners counsel numerous times over

twelve days from May 25, 2012 through June 5, 2012. Kristen Decl. 4-14 & Exhs. A-H.

While the federal defendants and the state defendants agreed to a joint stipulation (filed

herewith), counsel for BLAG ultimately refused. Id.

Plaintiffs will Suffer Substantial Prejudice if this Motion is Denied Whereas there is no Prejudice

to BLAG (or the other Defendants) if this Motion is Granted

BLAG cannot be prejudiced by the Courts granting this motion for additional time.

While BLAG asserts it has no liability forplaintiffs fees, costs and expenses, the merits of

plaintiffs claim are not at issue here. The other defendants have stipulated to more time as

described above and in the joint stipulation filed herewith. Therefore, there is no prejudice to the

defendants. Plaintiffs would be substantially and severely prejudiced if this Court were to deny

their motion as they would be prevented from presenting a full and complete application for

attorneys fees, costs and expenses.

In another case, this Court granted plaintiffs counsels administrative motion for

additional time in which to file an attorneys fee motion. Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,

Case No. C-09-01987-CW, Docket No. 151 (Oct. 28, 2010).


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

4/42


AND [PROPOSED]ORDER


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs request the Court grant their motion to extend the

time for the filing of their motion for reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses.

Respectfully submitted,

LEGAL AID SOCIETY

EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER

June 7, 2012 By: s/Elizabeth KristenElizabeth Kristen, Counsel for Plaintiffs


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

5/42


AND [PROPOSED]ORDER


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[Proposed] ORDER

The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a motion for reasonable attorneys fees, costs and

expenses on August 22, 2012.

It is so ordered.

Dated UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

6/42

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











Plaintiffs,

v.



Defendants.


DECLARATION OF ELIZABETH KRISTEN IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFSADMINISTRATIVEMOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE MOTION

FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYSFEES,

COSTS AND EXPENSES AS TO INTERVENER

THE BILATERAL LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP

OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE

[Local Rules 6-3]

[Hon. Claudia Wilken]

Case4:10-cv-01564-CW Document128-1 Filed06/07/12 Page1 of 4

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

7/42

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

8/42

KRISTEN DECL.ISOMOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME

AND [PROPOSED]ORDER


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

again asked all counsel to sign. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as

Exhibit D.

11. On June 4, 2012, counsel for the federal defendant sent additionalrequested edits that plaintiffs counsel incorporated. On June 6, 2012, federaldefendants counsel agreed to sign the edited stipulation. Plaintiffs counsel then sent

the revised stipulation to all counsel, again asking specifically if BLAG would sign the

stipulation. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit E.

12. On June 4, 2012, counsel for BLAG informedplaintiffs counsel that hewould respond to my email on the following day. A true and correct copy of this email

is attached as Exhibit F.

13. On June 5, 2012, counsel for BLAG responded that BLAG declined tosign the stipulation because it did not believe it had any liability for fees, costs or

expenses. A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit G.

14. Plaintiffs counsel responded the same day to again ask whether BLAGwould sign the stipulation for an extension of time, regardless of its position on liability

in order to avoid the filing of this motion. Counsel for BLAG replied and again declined

to sign the stipulation. True and correct copies of these emails are attached as Exhibit

H.

15. I reasonably believed that all parties would sign the stipulation foradditional time for plaintiffs motion. By the time I heard from BLAG on June 5, 2012,

that it would not agree to an extension of time, it was too late to complete plaintiffs fee

motion.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of the

United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration

was executed in San Francisco, California on June 7, 2012.

s/Elizabeth Kristen


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

9/42

KRISTEN DECL.ISOMOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME

AND [PROPOSED]ORDER


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Elizabeth Kristen, Counsel for Plaintiffs


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

10/42

EXHIBIT A


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

11/42

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

12/42

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











Plaintiffs,

v.



Defendants.


STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

REGARDING PLAINTIFFSMOTION FORREASONABLE ATTORNEYSFEES ANDCOSTS


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

13/42

Stipulation and Proposed Order


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREAS, on May 24, 2012, this Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs;

WHEREAS, this Court, in its Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

and Denying the BLAGs and Federal Defendants Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment,

dated May 24, 2012, specifically allowed Plaintiffs to submit a motion seeking attorneys fees

and costs;

WHEREAS, plaintiffs intend to file a motion for reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

WHEREAS, Rule 54 (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the

procedure and timing for a plaintiffs recovery of attorneys fees, and that rule requires that a

motion for such fees be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment; while, correspondingly, 28

U.S.C. 2412, which provides for a plaintiffs recovery of attorneys fees against the Federal

Government, or any agency, or any official of the United States acting in his or her official

capacity, requires that a motion for such fees and other expenses be filed within 30 days of final

judgment in the action;

WHEREAS, plaintiffs are seeking additional time within which to file their motion for

reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

WHEREAS, all parties have agreed to allow plaintiffs additional time within which to

file their motion for reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiffs motion for reasonable attorneys fees and costs will be filed on or before

August 22, 2012.

So stipulated,

LEGAL AID SOCIETY


Dated: By:

Claudia Center, Counsel for Plaintiffs


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

14/42



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP

OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Dated: By:

H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Counsel for BLAG

Dated: By:

Edward Gregory, Counsel for Defendants CalPERS

and Stausboll

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL DIVISION

Dated: By:

Jean Lin, Counsel for Federal Defendants


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

15/42



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GENERAL ORDER 45ATTESTATION

In accordance with General Order 45, concurrence in the filing of this document

has been obtained from each of the signatories, and I shall maintain records to support

this concurrence for subsequent production for the court if so ordered or for inspection

upon request by a party.

/s/ Claudia CenterClaudia Center


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

16/42

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

17/42

EXHIBIT B


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

18/42

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

19/42

EXHIBIT C


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

20/42

1

Elizabeth Kristen

From: Elizabeth KristenSent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:32 PMTo: 'Lin, Jean (CIV)'; [email protected]; [email protected]: Christopher Bartolomucci; Kircher, Kerry; William McNeill; Claudia CenterSubject: RE: Dragovich v. Treasury, 10-1564

DearCounselThankstoallofyouforresponding,andtotheStatedefendantsforagreeingtostipulatetoadditionaltimeforourmotionforreasonablefeesandcosts.Wearestillconsideringseekingfeesunder42USCsection1988againsttheBLAGandtheFederalDefendants.Therefore,werenewourrequestforastipulationforadditionaltimesothatwemayfullyconsiderthisquestionandfileourmotionoutsidethe14dayperiodifwedecidetodoso.Pleaseletmeknowifyouarewillingtostipulate.ThanksElizabeth

Elizabeth KristenDirector Gender Equity & LGBT Rights ProgramSenior Staff AttorneyLegal Aid Society-Employment Law Center180 Montgomery St., Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104Tel: 415.864.8848Fax: 415.593.0096www.las-elc.org

Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, an organization with more than 95 years of uninterrupted service to the community, enforces rightsguaranteed by federal, state and local employment-related civil rights laws, enabling low wage workers and their families to maintain economic self-sufficiency.

This message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain confidential information protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege. Ifyou have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email. Please do not disclose the contents of this message toanyone and immediately delete the message and any attachments.

Thank you.

From: Lin, Jean (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:47 AM

To: Elizabeth Kristen; [email protected]; [email protected]: Christopher Bartolomucci; Kircher, KerrySubject: RE: Dragovich v. Treasury, 10-1564

Jennifer and Ed: My apologies. I neglected to include the both of you in my email response to Elisabethyesterday. Please see below the federal defendants position.

Elizabeth, please take a look at this 9

th

Circuit case,Al-Harbi v. INS

, 284 F.3d 1080 (9

th

Cir. 2002). It confirmswhat I said below both about the timing and the fact that we cant extend the deadline by agreement.

Jean Lin

Senior Trial Counsel

U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Div.

Federal Programs Branch

(202) 514-3716

From: Lin, Jean (CIV)Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 12:26 PM


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

21/42

2

To: Kircher, Kerry; [email protected]

Cc: Christopher BartolomucciSubject: RE: Dragovich v. Treasury, 10-1564

Elizabeth: I dont think you need an extension until August 22. By my calculation, your fee motion is due

August 22 anyway at the earliest (i.e., 90 days from May 24), if there is no appeal. But we are still consideringthe issue of appeal, so your deadline could be much later. Specifically, 28 USC 2412(d)(1)(A) says that a

motion for an award of fees and other expenses shall be filed within thirty days of final judgment in the

action. Section 2412(d)(2)(G) defines final judgment to mean a judgment that is final and not appealable,and includes an order of settlement. The 5/24 judgment becomes non-appealable on 7/23, which is 60 days

from 5/24. And if no one appeals, then 30 days from 7/23 would be your deadline for seeking fees and other

expenses, which would be August 22.

If you are concerned about Rule 54(d)(2)(B), it says that a motion for fees must be filed no later than 14 days of

the entry of judgment, [u]nless a statute or a court order providers otherwise. When you are seeking fees

against the United States, EAJA is the statute that controls. As for costs (which are specifically spelled out in28 USC 1920), Rule 54(d)(1) just says that the clerk may tax costs on 14 days notice, and on motion served

within the next 7 days, the court may review the clerks action. I dont see a deadline for asking for costs.

Also, my understanding is that the deadline specified under 28 USC 2412(d)(1)(A) cannot be extended byagreement as it is a waiver of sovereign immunity and hence jurisdictional.

Let me know what you think.

Jean Lin




(202) 514-3716

From: Kircher, Kerry [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:04 AMTo: [email protected]; Lin, Jean (CIV)Cc: Christopher BartolomucciSubject: FW: Dragovich v. Treasury, 10-1564

Elizabeth: Housetakesnopositiononthissinceitdoesnotappeartoconcernus. (Ifyouthinkyoumotionforfees/costswouldlieagainsttheHouse,wouldappreciateyoursoadvisingme.)SuggestyoudropusoutofthesignatureblockandjustincludeaWhereasclausesayingHousetakesnoposition.Thanks.kwk

From: Elizabeth Kristen [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 5:44 PM

To: Gregory, Edward; Lin, Jean (CIV); Christopher Bartolomucci

Cc: Claudia Center; William McNeillSubject: Dragovich v. Treasury, 10-1564

DearCounsel


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

22/42

3

Plaintiffsintendtofileamotionforfeesandcosts. However,weareseekingastipulationregardingthetimingofsuchamotion. Asyouwillseeintheattacheddraft,weproposedAugust22,2012,asthefilingdateforthefeemotion.Pleaseletmeknowwhetheryouhaveanyobjectiontotheattachedstipulation.RegardsElizabethElizabeth KristenDirector Gender Equity & LGBT Rights ProgramSenior Staff Attorney

Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center180 Montgomery St., Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104Tel: 415.864.8848Fax: 415.593.0096www.las-elc.org


This message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain confidential information protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege. Ifyou have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email. Please do not disclose the contents of this message toanyone and immediately delete the message and any attachments.Thank you.


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

23/42

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

24/42

1

Elizabeth Kristen

From: Elizabeth KristenSent: Friday, June 01, 2012 3:53 PMTo: 'Lin, Jean (CIV)'; Christopher Bartolomucci; 'Gregory, Edward'; Morrow, JenniferCc: Claudia Center; William McNeillSubject: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOCAttachments: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOC

HiAllIhaverevisedthestipulationtoendeavortoaddressJeansconcerns. Canyouallletmeknowifyouwillsignthis?ThanksElizabethElizabeth KristenDirector Gender Equity & LGBT Rights ProgramSenior Staff AttorneyLegal Aid Society-Employment Law Center180 Montgomery St., Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104Tel: 415.864.8848Fax: 415.593.0096

www.las-elc.org




7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

25/42

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











Plaintiffs,

v.



Defendants.


STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

REGARDING PLAINTIFFSMOTION FORREASONABLE ATTORNEYSFEES ANDCOSTS


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

26/42



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREAS, on May 24, 2012, this Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs;

WHEREAS, this Court, in its Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

and Denying the BLAGs and Federal Defendants Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment,

dated May 24, 2012, specifically allowed Plaintiffs to submit a motion seeking attorneys fees

and costs;

WHEREAS, plaintiffs intend to file a motion for reasonable attorneys fees and costs;

WHEREAS, Rule 54 (B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the

procedure and timing for a plaintiffs recovery of attorneys fees, and that rule requires that a

motion for such fees be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment; while, correspondingly, 28

U.S.C. 2412 (EAJA), which provides for a plaintiffs recovery of attorneys fees against the

Federal Government, or any agency, or any official of the United States acting in his or her

official capacity, requires that a motion for such fees and other expenses be filed within 30 days

of final judgment in the action;

WHEREAS, plaintiffs are seeking additional time within which to file any motion for

reasonable attorneys fees and costs that do not arise under EAJA;

WHEREAS, all parties have agreed to allow plaintiffs additional time within which to

file their motion for reasonable attorneys fees and costs that do not arise under EAJA;

WHEREAS, the deadline for filing their motion for reasonable attorneys fees and costs

under EAJA is not affected by this stipulation.

WHEREAS, defendants do not concede that plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys

fees and costs by entering into this stipulation for an extension of time.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiffs motion for reasonable attorneys fees and costs will be filed on or before

August 22, 2012.

So stipulated,

LEGAL AID SOCIETY



7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

27/42

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

28/42



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GENERAL ORDER 45ATTESTATION

In accordance with General Order 45, concurrence in the filing of this document

has been obtained from each of the signatories, and I shall maintain records to support

this concurrence for subsequent production for the court if so ordered or for inspection

upon request by a party.

/s/ Claudia CenterClaudia Center


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

29/42



1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

It is so ordered.

Dated UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

30/42

EXHIBIT E


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

31/42

1

Elizabeth Kristen

From: Elizabeth KristenSent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:30 AMTo: 'Lin, Jean (CIV)'; Christopher Bartolomucci; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer;

[email protected]: Claudia Center; William McNeillSubject: RE: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees

(00277284-4).DOC

ThanksJean. IassumethisisstillokfortheStatedefendants. CanyouconfirmEd? Also,Christopher,canyouletmeknowwhetherBLAGwillsign?RegardsElizabeth

Elizabeth KristenDirector Gender Equity & LGBT Rights ProgramSenior Staff AttorneyLegal Aid Society-Employment Law Center180 Montgomery St., Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104Tel: 415.864.8848Fax: 415.593.0096www.las-elc.org



From: Lin, Jean (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:57 AMTo: Elizabeth Kristen; Christopher Bartolomucci; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer; [email protected]

Cc: Claudia Center; William McNeill

Subject: RE: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOC

Elizabeth: Thanks for the revision. Please see my attached edits, which are principally just to reflect that EAJA

doesnt cover costs, only fees and expenses, and the 30 day after final judgment rule is only for fees and

expenses under 2412(d). The separate waiver for sovereign immunity for costs is in 2412(a), which is not partof EAJA.

Jean Lin


U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Div.Federal Programs Branch

(202) 514-3716

From: Elizabeth Kristen [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 6:53 PM

To: Lin, Jean (CIV); Christopher Bartolomucci; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer


Subject: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOC

HiAll


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

32/42

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

33/42

EXHIBIT F


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

34/42

1

Elizabeth Kristen

From: Christopher Bartolomucci [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:46 AMTo: Elizabeth Kristen; Lin, Jean (CIV); Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer;


(00277284-4).DOC

Iwill,Elizabeth,butIneedtoconferwithmyclient,andwearefinalizingandfilingour9thCircuitbriefinGolinskitoday,soitwillprobablybetomorrow.From: Elizabeth Kristen [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 2:30 PM

To: Lin, Jean (CIV); Christopher Bartolomucci; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer; [email protected]



ThanksJean. IassumethisisstillokfortheStatedefendants. CanyouconfirmEd? Also,Christopher,canyouletmeknowwhetherBLAGwillsign?RegardsElizabeth




From: Lin, Jean (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 10:57 AM

To: Elizabeth Kristen; Christopher Bartolomucci; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer; [email protected]




doesnt cover costs, only fees and expenses, and the 30 day after final judgment rule is only for fees andexpenses under 2412(d). The separate waiver for sovereign immunity for costs is in 2412(a), which is not part

of EAJA.

Jean Lin





7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

35/42

2

(202) 514-3716

From: Elizabeth Kristen [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 6:53 PM


Cc: Claudia Center; William McNeillSubject: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOC

HiAllIhaverevisedthestipulationtoendeavortoaddressJeansconcerns. Canyouallletmeknowifyouwillsignthis?ThanksElizabethElizabeth KristenDirector Gender Equity & LGBT Rights ProgramSenior Staff AttorneyLegal Aid Society-Employment Law Center180 Montgomery St., Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104Tel: 415.864.8848Fax: 415.593.0096www.las-elc.org




7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

36/42

EXHIBIT G


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

37/42

1

Elizabeth Kristen

From: Christopher Bartolomucci [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:14 PMTo: Lin, Jean (CIV); Elizabeth Kristen; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer;


(00277284-4).DOC

Elizabeth,theHousesviewisthatitdoesnothaveanyliabilityinthislitigationforanyfees,costs,orexpenses. Andsinceitdoesnothaveadoginthisfight,theHousedeclinestosignthestipulation. ButyoumayrepresenttotheCourtthattheHousetakesnopositiononwhenyourfeemotionmustbefiled.From: Lin, Jean (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 1:57 PM

To: Elizabeth Kristen; Christopher Bartolomucci; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer; [email protected]






Jean Lin




(202) 514-3716




Subject: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOC

HiAllIhaverevisedthestipulationtoendeavortoaddressJeansconcerns. Canyouallletmeknowifyouwillsignthis?ThanksElizabethElizabeth KristenDirector Gender Equity & LGBT Rights ProgramSenior Staff AttorneyLegal Aid Society-Employment Law Center180 Montgomery St., Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104Tel: 415.864.8848Fax: 415.593.0096www.las-elc.org



7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

38/42

2



7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

39/42

EXHIBIT H


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

40/42

7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

41/42

2


Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, an organization with more than 95 years of uninterrupted service to the community, enforces rightsguaranteed by federal, state and local employment-related civil rights laws, enabling low wage workers and their families to maintain economic self-

sufficiency.


From: Christopher Bartolomucci [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 1:14 PMTo: Lin, Jean (CIV); Elizabeth Kristen; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer; [email protected]: Claudia Center; William McNeillSubject: RE: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOC

Elizabeth,theHousesviewisthatitdoesnothaveanyliabilityinthislitigationforanyfees,costs,orexpenses. Andsinceitdoesnothaveadoginthisfight,theHousedeclinestosignthestipulation. ButyoumayrepresenttotheCourtthattheHousetakesnopositiononwhenyourfeemotionmustbefiled.From: Lin, Jean (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 1:57 PMTo: Elizabeth Kristen; Christopher Bartolomucci; Gregory, Edward; Morrow, Jennifer; [email protected]: Claudia Center; William McNeillSubject: RE: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOC




Jean Lin




(202) 514-3716



Cc: Claudia Center; William McNeillSubject: Emailing: Stipulation and Proposed Order re Reasonable Attorneys' Fees (00277284-4).DOC

HiAllIhaverevisedthestipulationtoendeavortoaddressJeansconcerns. Canyouallletmeknowifyouwillsignthis?ThanksElizabethElizabeth KristenDirector Gender Equity & LGBT Rights ProgramSenior Staff Attorney


7/31/2019 4:10-cv-01564 #128

42/42

Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center180 Montgomery St., Suite 600San Francisco, CA 94104Tel: 415.864.8848Fax: 415.593.0096www.las-elc.org


This message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain confidential information protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege. If

you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email. Please do not disclose the contents of this message toanyone and immediately delete the message and any attachments.Thank you.


Documents

4:10-cv-01564 #128