case 5:18-cv-04914-nc document 237-1 filed 01/17/20 page …case no. 5:18-cv-4914 declaration of...

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

ATTO RN EY S AT LA W LOS A NG EL ES

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

1 DECLARATION OF ADRIANNE MARSHACK ISO

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT REGARDING EAJA FEES AND COSTS

MATTHEW KANNY (SBN 167118) [email protected] ADRIANNE MARSHACK (SBN 253682) [email protected] SIRENA CASTILLO (SBN 260565) [email protected] MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 BREE BERNWANGER (NY 5036397) pro hac vice [email protected] LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-9444 Facsimile: (415) 543-0296

Attorneys for Plaintiffs J.L., M.D.G.B., J.B.A., M.G.S. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

JUDY LONDON (SBN 149431) [email protected] SARA VAN HOFWEGEN (SBN 266985) svanhofwegen@ publiccounsel.org MARY TANAGHO ROSS (SBN 280657) [email protected] PUBLIC COUNSEL 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Telephone: (213) 385-2977 Facsimile: (213) 385-9089

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J.L., M.D.G.B., J.B.A., and M.G.S. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:18-CV-4914

DECLARATION OF ADRIANNE MARSHACK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT REGARDING EAJA ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Date: February 26, 2020 Time: 1:00 pm Hon. Nathanael M. Cousins Action Filed: August 14, 2018

Case 5:18-cv-04914-NC Document 237-1 Filed 01/17/20 of 34



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



DECLARATION OF ADRIANNE MARSHACK

I, Adrianne Marshack, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am an attorney, duly authorized and licensed to practice before all of the courts

of the State of California, and before this Court. I am a partner with the law firm of Manatt,

Phelps & Phillips, LLP (“Manatt”), counsel of record for Plaintiffs J.L., M.G.S., M.D.G.B., and

J.B.A. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) in the above-captioned action. At all relevant times herein,

Manatt, with co-counsel, has been principally responsible for the representation of Plaintiffs in

this case. This Declaration is based upon my personal knowledge of the facts set forth below,

and, if called upon to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto.

2. On January 14, 2020, the parties executed a proposed settlement as to Plaintiffs’

request for fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Attached hereto as

Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Fees and Costs Settlement Agreement dated January

14, 2020.

3. The parties have engaged in arms-length settlement negotiations, including three

telephonic conference sessions and a series of written and telephonic correspondence over a

period of several months under the direction and supervision of Judge Ryu, to arrive at the Fees

and Costs Settlement Agreement that all parties concluded is reasonable.

4. This Declaration is made in support of the accompanying Motion for Approval of

Settlement Agreement Regarding Plaintiffs’ Claim for EAJA Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

(“Plaintiffs’ Motion”). It is divided into the following topics:

• Procedural History of the case;

• Details regarding Manatt’s timekeepers; and

• Details on monthly tasks performed and fees billed by Manatt in this matter.

• Details on costs expended by Manatt in this matter.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

5. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 14, 2018.

6. The case proceeded through an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

injunction (see Dkt. # 49); an appeal regarding the same (see Dkt. ## 80-81, 89-90), which the




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



Government dismissed before any substantial briefing (see Dkt. # 143; see also No. 18-17428

(9th Cir.)), a motion to dismiss (see Dkt. ## 91, 109, 115, 136), which was denied (see Dkt. #

142); a motion for class certification (see Dkt. ## 71, 94, 98), which was granted (see Dkt. # 112),

several discovery disputes (see Dkt. ## 96, 102, 103, 107, 108, 110, 111, 118, 121, 128-130, 133,

135, 136, 140, 145-161, 164, 165, 167, and 173), and briefing on cross-motions for summary

judgment (see Dkt. ## 179, 180, 185, 186, 195, 196).

7. Following the briefing on summary judgment, but prior to the hearing, the parties

reached a settlement as to the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, but not as to attorneys’ fees and costs,

which required further negotiations and the instant motion.

DETAILS REGARDING MANATT’S TIMEKEEPERS

8. A total of 28 timekeepers from Manatt have recorded time on this case from June

2018 through December 2019. In an exercise of billing judgment, we outline fees only for 16 of

them. Summaries of each timekeeper follow.

9. I focus my practice on class actions and complex commercial litigation. I

predominantly represent clients in the areas of consumer class actions, unfair competition, false

advertising and trade secrets. I also have substantial experience representing employers in all

aspects of litigation, including employee class actions, wage and hour issues, discrimination,

harassment, and wrongful termination proceedings in state and federal court. I also counsel

clients on a variety of issues, including employment matters, advertising and marketing, and

proactive protection of rights in trade secrets. I graduated from UCLA School of Law in 2007.

Prior to practicing law, I was an elementary school teacher in South Central Los Angeles, within

the Los Angeles Unified School District. I have served on the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Advisory Panel for the Children’s Hospital of Orange County, and I am a founding member of the

Board of Directors of MaxLove Project, Inc., which supports research, education, and family and

patient advocacy relating to childhood cancer and other life-threatening childhood diseases. I am

also on the Board of Directors for the Orange County Bar Association (2017 to present, and

through 2022), as well as the Public Law Center, which provides low cost and pro bono legal

services to persons in Orange County, California. My work on this matter included reviewing




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



and revising the class action allegations of the complaint; reviewing and revising the motion for

preliminary injunction and reply in support thereof; reviewing and revising the motion to proceed

using pseudonyms and reply in support thereof; arguing at the hearing on the motion for

preliminary injunction and pseudonym motion; reviewing and revising the motion for class

certification and rely in support thereof; arguing at the hearing on the motion for class

certification; and advising regarding various discovery issues.

10. Sirena P. Castillo is a litigation partner at Manatt and member of the firm’s

Investigations and White Collar Defense practice group. Her practice includes representing

clients in civil litigation and criminal investigations and prosecutions. She graduated from

University of Southern California Gould School of Law in 2008 and holds a BSLA and MA from

Georgetown University. Before joining Manatt, Ms. Castillo was an import policy analyst with

the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (ITA), where, as a part of the

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition Counseling and Analysis Unit, she advised U.S.

industries and assisted in the initiation of petitions to address violations of U.S. unfair trade laws.

Sirena also served as a policy advisor to the acting assistant secretary for Import Administration,

the head of the ITA’s lead unit on enforcing trade laws and agreements regarding imports. Ms.

Castillo also served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Dale S. Fischer (ret.) in the U.S. District

Court for the Central District of California. Along with Ms. Tanagho Ross, Ms. Castillo was

responsible for overseeing all aspects of the litigation, including editing briefs, arguing several

motions and appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs at other hearings.

11. Matthew Kanny is a litigation partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office. He has

extensive experience in complex commercial and business litigation, class action defense,

antitrust and trade regulation, unfair competition and false advertising matters, and entertainment

litigation. Mr. Kanny currently serves as a member of the firm’s Compensation Committee, and

formerly served as chair of the firm’s national litigation and trial practice, chair of the firm’s

Strategic Growth Committee, and a member of the firm’s Management Committee. He

represents clients in federal and state courts and in arbitration proceedings across the country. He

is actively involved in leading all phases of litigation, from prelitigation counseling through trial




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



and appeal. Mr. Kanny provided strategic advice regarding the complaint, the class certification

briefing, the motion to dismiss briefing, and various discovery issues.

12. Don Brown is a litigation partner and handles complex commercial litigation at the

regulatory, trial and appellate levels, focusing on defending e-commerce, direct marketing and

media companies in consumer class actions and arbitrations. Mr. Brown also has substantial

litigation experience in areas such as banking and lender liability, illegal website access, online

advertising, and defamation. Mr. Brown is a graduate of New York University School of Law

and Swarthmore College. Mr. Brown provided strategic advice regarding proceeding as a class

action, reviewed and edited the motion for class certification and reply in support thereof.

13. Ronald Blum is a partner at Manatt who represents clients in complex criminal and

civil matters. He is particularly skilled in parallel proceedings in which clients face simultaneous

criminal penalties and civil liability, and has extensive experience handling the issues that arise at

the intersection of criminal and civil law, including questions concerning privileges and waiver of

privileges, discovery and voluntary disclosure. Before entering private practice, Mr. Blum served

as Law Clerk to United States District Judge Lloyd F. MacMahon, in the Southern District of

New York, and Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office,

where he handled investigations, trials and appeals of numerous criminal matters. He is also an

Adjunct Professor at Fordham Law School and has published numerous articles on criminal and

civil procedure. Mr. Blum’s work on this litigation focused on review of the complaint.

14. Joanna McCallum is an appellate partner and her practice focuses on appellate

matters and business litigation, concentrating in the areas of healthcare law, insurance law, unfair

competition, ERISA, anti-SLAPP, and antitrust law. She has represented hospital systems, health

insurers, nursing homes, finance companies, and multi-employer pension trusts in a variety of

appellate and litigation matters in federal and state courts. Ms. McCallum served as law clerk to

the Honorable Kim McLane Wardlaw of the United States District Court for the Central District

of California (now on the Ninth Circuit) in 1996-1997. Ms. McCallum is a Certified Specialist in

Appellate Law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. She is also serving

as a Ninth Circuit Appellate Lawyer Representative. Ms. McCallum provided strategic advice




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



regarding Defendants’ appeal of the preliminary judgment grant and the summary judgment

briefing.

15. Molly Wyler is an associate in the firm’s Los Angeles office and a member of the

litigation practice and financial services group. Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Wyler served as a

judicial extern to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California and to Magistrate Judge Susan Cox of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Ms. Wyler is a 2014 graduate of Northwestern

University School of Law. Ms. Wyler assisted with drafting a motion for discovery outside of the

Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”).

16. Matthew Golper is a former associate at Manatt who was part of the employment

and labor practice. He has particular experience defending employers in complex wage and hour

matters, including in high-exposure class, collective, and representative action matters brought

under California’s Labor Code, California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the federal

Fair Labor Standards Act, California’s Unfair Competition Laws, and the Fair Credit Reporting

Act (FCRA) and related state analogues. He also has substantial experience representing

employers and executives in single-plaintiff discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful

termination and related tort claims, and breach of contract matters. Mr. Golper drafted Plaintiff’s

motion for preliminary injunction and the reply in support thereof, and conducted related

research; drafted portions of the motion for class certification; assisted with the coordination of

amicus briefs; prepared the first amended complaint; drafted the reply in support of class

certification and related research; drafted Plaintiffs’ portions of status reports; and prepared the

initial draft motion for summary judgment.

17. Diana Eisner is a former litigation associate at Manatt. Ms. Eisner focused on

complex commercial litigation, labor disputes, employment discrimination cases, real estate

disputes and other civil litigation matters. Ms. Eisner’s previous experience includes working in

the commercial litigation group of a Philadelphia-based law firm, where she also practiced in the

labor and employment group. After graduating from Temple University – James E. Beasley

School of Law in 2010, she clerked for the Honorable Francine I. Axelrad, a Presiding Judge of




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



the New Jersey Appellate Division. Ms. Eisner’s work on this litigation included drafting the

motion to proceed using pseudonyms, along with Mr. Bottomly, and conducting related research.

18. Kathleen Wise is an associate in Manatt’s Los Angeles office, concentrating in

white collar investigations and financial services litigation matters. She graduated from

University of Virginia School of Law in 2016. Before joining Manatt, Ms. Wise served as a law

clerk to the Honorable Robert S. Ballou, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Virginia. She was a legal intern for the Department of Justice's U.S.

Attorney’s Office in the District of Maryland and helped prosecute cases at the state level in

Virginia as a law student. Before law school, Ms. Wise worked in the Fraud Detection Office of

the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General while earning her master's degree in

forensic psychology. Ms. Wise assisted with drafting portions of the complaint; drafting the reply

of motion to proceed using pseudonyms; drafted various stipulations and case management

statements; drafted the motion for protective order; drafted various discovery motions and meet

and confer letters; argued motion in support of motion for privilege log; reviewed issues related

to Defendants’ appeal of grant of preliminary injunction; drafted portions of motion for summary

judgment; drafted reply in support of motion for summary judgment, and drafted opposition to

motion for summary judgment; and assisted with other research throughout the litigation.

19. Kristin Haule is a litigation associate in Manatt’s Los Angeles office. She works

on individual and class action litigation in both state and federal courts for clients in a variety of

industries, including healthcare, advertising and finance. Ms. Haule has experience litigating

under various federal statutes, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. She is a member of

Manatt’s TCPA compliance and class action defense practice. She also served as a judicial extern

for the Honorable Harry Pregerson and the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt, both of the United

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She graduated from Loyola Law School in 2016.

Ms. Haule assisted with drafting the motion for class certification; drafted the opposition to

Defendants’ motion to dismiss and attended the hearing; drafted various discovery submissions




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



and motions; reviewed portions of the supplemental CAR; and conducted research in support of

the motion for summary judgment.

20. Allison Nelson is a litigation associate in Manatt’s Los Angeles office. She

graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 2017. During law school, Ms. Nelson

externed both in the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice and at the Los

Angeles Superior Court for the Honorable Robert B. Broadbelt III. Ms. Nelson conducted

research in support of the complaint; drafted portions of the complaint; assisted with edits

(including cite checking) to the motion for preliminary injunction and reply in support thereof,

class certification motion and reply in support thereof, and declarations in support of various

motions; drafted motion for discovery outside the CAR; reviewed portions of the supplemental

CAR; and assisted with research throughout the litigation.

21. Michael Nordon is a litigation associate in Manatt’s Los Angeles office. He

graduated from University of Southern California, Gould School of Law in 2017. Mr. Nordon

previously served as a law clerk for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office Hardcore Gang

Division. Mr. Nordon conducted research in support of the complaint; drafted portions of the

complaint; assisted with edits (including cite checking) to the motion for preliminary injunction

and reply in support thereof, motion to proceed using pseudonyms and reply in support thereof,

class certification motion and reply in support thereof, motion for summary judgment and reply in

support thereof, and opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; drafted

correspondence and Plaintiffs’ portions of status reports; drafted portions of discovery motions;

reviewed portions of the supplemental CAR; drafted Plaintiffs’ settlement conference statement;

and assisted with other research throughout the litigation.

22. Alma Piñan is a litigation associate in Manatt’s Los Angeles office. She graduated

from Loyola Law School in 2018. Before joining Manatt, Ms. Piñan served as a judicial extern to

the Honorable Sandra R. Klein of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California,

where she supported matters involving bankruptcy law and civil procedure. In law school, Ms.

Piñan participated in the Juvenile Justice Clinic, where she advocated for and defended juveniles

in court. Ms. Piñan’s work on this litigation included drafting the protective order; drafting




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



portions of the motion for class certification; assisting with edits (including cite checking) to the

motion class certification motion and reply in support thereof, opposition to defendants’ motion

to dismiss, motion for summary judgment, and opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment; drafting portions of discovery motions; reviewed portions of the supplemental CAR;

and assisting with other research throughout the litigation.

23. Michael Olsen is an associate in the employment and labor practice and is based in

the firm’s Orange County office. His practice includes labor and employment litigation and

counseling, including defending employers in federal and state courts and in front of

administrative entities. He graduated from University of California, Hastings College of the Law

in 2015. During law school, he served as a law clerk for the Legal Aid Foundation of Los

Angeles, where he assisted indigent veterans, was an extern in the civil division of the United

States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, and served as an extern for the

Honorable Thelton E. Henderson, United States District Court for the Northern District of

California. Mr. Olsen drafted portions of the motion for summary judgment and reply in support

thereof and drafted portions of the opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

24. Matthew Bottomly is a former patent associate at Manatt based in Orange County

and experienced in all aspects of intellectual property. He graduated from George Mason

University – Antonin Scalia Law School in 2009. His previous experience includes working in

an AmLaw 200 firm, working in-house at a consumer electronic company and an entertainment

company, founding an IoT device start-up, and working as a patent examiner at the United States

Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Bottomly’s work on this litigation included drafting the

motion to proceed using pseudonyms and reply in support thereof, conducting related research,

and drafting Plaintiffs’ declarations. Mr. Bottomly also conducted research in support of the

complaint.

DETAILS ON MONTHLY BILLING TASKS PERFORMED

AND FEES BILLED BY MANATT IN THIS MATTER

25. In connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion, Ms. Castillo and I requested and obtained

time and billing entries recorded by Manatt attorneys and professionals. The time entries were




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



based on time recorded by the individual attorneys and professionals performing services on this

matter, including myself. Ms. Castillo and I reviewed the billing entries, and as the persons at

Manatt who were assigning and overseeing the particular tasks involved, we believe that the

statements accurately reflect the time spent by me and others at Manatt performing the various

tasks reflected on the statements. We have excluded all time expended by paralegals and law

clerks, although the work performed by these individuals directly and substantially contributed to

the success of our Plaintiffs in this litigation.

26. The total number of hours spent by the 16 Manatt attorneys mentioned above

between June 2018 and December 18, 2019 was 2975.2 hours. These hours, broken down by

month, are as follows: 2018 2019 January 222.3 February 101.6 March 141.0 April 122.8 May 101.4 June 155.6 57.7 July 222.5 99.1 August 232.7 178.1 September 173.1 173.6 October 168.4 237.5 November 158.2 117.6 December 121.8 190.2 TOTAL: 1232.3 1742.9

27. The descriptions below document fees for the above-referenced 16 attorneys for a

total of $1,760,487.50; this figure represents the full value of the legal services performed by

these Manatt attorneys at their billing rates that were in effect at the time the work was

performed.

28. Plaintiffs have also calculated the fees for these 16 timekeepers listed above

according to the statutory rates in effect for those years under the EAJA. See 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d)(2)(A); Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1. These rates are set at $201.60 per hour for time billed in

2018 and $204.25 per hour for time billed in 2019.




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



29. To determine what fees would be proper to award under the statutory rates set

forth under the EAJA, Manatt calculated the value of each time entry based on its date.

30. The total amount of fees incurred by Plaintiffs for services performed by Manatt in

this matter from June 2018 through December 18, 2019, subject to the applicable EAJA rate caps,

is $604,419.00. This figure does not include time billed by law clerks or paralegals and does not

include any time spent after December 18, 2019 regarding continued EAJA fees negotiations or

the PI violations.

31. A detailed summary of the tasks performed by Manatt, and the fees billed, for each

month from June 2018 through December 18, 2019 follows below.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in June 2018

32. Manatt began conducting legal research and strategizing regarding the viability of

each of their potential claims, drafting, and revising the Complaint.

33. Manatt also researched and strategized regarding proceeding under pseudonyms

and regarding a motion for preliminary injunction.

34. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in June 2018 was

155.60.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in July 2018

35. Manatt continued to conduct legal research and to draft, edit, and revise portions of

the Complaint. Manatt further conducted factual research into the US Citizenship and

Immigration Services new policy memorandum and other publicly-available documents regarding

the Government’s policy change regarding the adjudication of SIJS petitions for petitioners age

18 years old or older and collected and reviewed exhibits to the Complaint.

36. Manatt continued to research and strategize and began drafting and revising the

Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

37. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in July 2018 was

222.50.




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



Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in August 2018

38. In August, Manatt continued to strategize, research, draft, edit, and revise the

Complaint, the Motion to Proceed Using Pseudonyms, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and

related declarations and compile exhibits thereto. Manatt finalized these documents and filed

them on August 14, 2018. See Dkt. # 6.

39. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in August 2018

was 232.7.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in September 2018

40. In September, the Manatt team reviewed the Government’s Oppositions to the

Motion to Proceed Using Pseudonyms and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and drafted the

Reply briefs thereto (both which Manatt filed on October 2, 2018). See Dkt. ## 36-37.

41. Manatt also conducted research regarding a protective order and strategized

regarding potential amicus briefing.

42. The Manatt team also began strategizing regarding class certification briefing.

43. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in September

2018 was 173.10.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in October 2018

44. In October 2018, the Manatt team finalized and filed the Reply Briefs in support of

the Motion to Proceed Using Pseudonyms and the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Manatt

also drafted and filed a notice of supplemental authority and prepared, strategized for, and

attended the hearing on October 17. See Dkt. # 46.

45. In early October 2018, the Manatt team was informed that former class

representative M.V.B. was granted asylum and strategized regarding the implications of M.V.B.’s

status change.

46. Manatt also drafted and revised the Rule 26(f) report and met and conferred with

the Government and strategized regarding case deadlines and the Government’s request for an

extension of time to respond to the complaint.

47. Manatt further drafted and revised a protective order.




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



48. Manatt also strategized regarding class certification and a discovery plan.

49. In late October 2018, the Manatt team learned of two Notices of Intent to Deny

(“NOID”) the government issued in violation of the Preliminary Injunction and strategized

regarding the same.

50. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in October 2018

was 168.4.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in November 2018

51. In November, Manatt strategized regarding the Amended Complaint, and drafted,

edited, finalized, and filed the Amended Complaint.

52. The Manatt team also edited, revised, finalized, and filed the motion for class

certification and declarations and exhibits thereto.

53. Manatt also became aware of additional SIJS denials in violation of the

Preliminary Injunction, and strategized how to address them, filed a Response regarding

Defendants’ Notice of Compliance with Court Order, and corresponded with the Government

regarding the Government’s retraction of NOIDs issued in violation of the Preliminary Injunction.

54. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in November

2018 was 158.20.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in December 2018

55. In December, Manatt reviewed the updated Notice of Compliance the government

filed on November 30, as well as the Government’s Opposition to Class Certification and related

documents. Manatt also researched, outlined, and drafted the Reply brief in support of Class

Certification.

56. During December, Manatt also strategized, began research, and outlined their

motion for summary judgment.

57. On December 20, 2018, the Government filed a notice of appeal of the order

granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. See Dkt. # 80. The next day the Court

ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding whether the proceedings should be stayed in light

of the pending appeal. See Dkt. # 81. The Government requested an extension of time to respond




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



to the Court’s order, which was denied. See Dkt. ## 83-84. Manatt strategized regarding these

issues, met and conferred with the Government, and drafted and revised letter briefing regarding

the same. See Dkt. # 89. Manatt’s appellate attorneys also reviewed, analyzed, and prepared for

the Ninth Circuit proceedings.

58. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in December

2018 was 121.80.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in January 2019

59. On January 2, 2019, the Government moved to extend their time to respond to the

Amended Complaint (which was filed on November 20, 2018), in light of the Department of

Justice’s appropriations lapsing on December 21, 2018. As part of the same motion, the

Government also moved to extend the time to complete discovery. See Dkt. # 86. Plaintiffs

strategized regarding these requests, and the parties met and conferred, but ultimately Plaintiffs

did not agree to the extension, in light of the fact that they had already granted the government

several extensions and the Amended Complaint changed very little from the original

complaint. Plaintiffs drafted an opposition, which they filed the following day. See Dkt. #

87. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion the same day. See Dkt. # 88.

60. On January 11, 2019, the Government moved to stay the hearing on Plaintiffs’

Motion for Class Certification, again citing the DOJ’s appropriations lapse. See Dkt. #

97. Plaintiffs filed an opposition the same day for the same reasons. See Dkt. # 98. On January

14, 2019, the Court denied the Government’s motion to stay. See Dkt. # 99.

61. The parties strategized and met and conferred regarding upcoming discovery

deadlines. The parties jointly stipulated to extend certain discovery deadlines. See Dkt. # 110.

The Court denied the stipulation the same day for lack of good cause shown. See Dkt. # 111.

62. The parties also finalized and filed their joint letter brief regarding whether the

Court retained jurisdiction and whether future proceedings should be stayed in light of

Defendants’ pending appeal from the order granting preliminary injunction. See Dkt. # 81. The

parties submitted the joint letter brief on January 4. See Dkt. # 89. Because the Court retained




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



jurisdiction and because the Defendants had not sought a stay, the Court declined to stay the

proceedings. See Dkt. # 90.

63. On January 7, the Government moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.

See Dkt. # 91. Plaintiffs reviewed the motion, strategized, and researched, outlined, drafted,

edited, revised, and finalized the Opposition, which they filed on January 28, 2019. See Dkt. #

109.

64. Plaintiffs continued researching, drafting, editing, revising, and finalizing Reply

Brief in support of their Motion for Class Certification, which they filed on January 9, 2019. See

Dkt. # 94. The parties also prepared for and attended the hearing for the Motion for Class

Certification on January 23, 2019. See Dkt. # 104.

65. On January 11, 2019, the Government produced the CAR. See Dkt. # 96.

Plaintiffs diligently reviewed the CAR and met and conferred with the Government regarding

several issues/deficiencies with the CAR. Ultimately, Plaintiffs submitted a Motion to Extend

APA Discovery. See Dkt. # 103. Despite attempting to meet and confer with the Government

several times before filing that motion, the parties were unable to meaningfully meet and confer.

Two days later, the Government filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend

APA Discovery. See Dkt. # 107.

66. The parties also met, conferred, prepared, and submitted a joint status report on

January 16, 2019. See Dkt. # 102. In January, the parties also met, conferred, and prepared a

Joint Case Management Statement, which was submitted on February 4, 2019.

67. The parties also reviewed and strategized regarding the Ninth Circuit proceedings.

Specifically, on January 4, 2019, the Ninth Circuit submitted an Order that the case was not

designated for the mediation program. See No. 18-17428, Dkt. # 7. On January 8, 2019, the

Government moved for a stay of briefing, in light of the DOJ’s appropriations lapse. See No. 18-

17428, Dkt. # 8. On January 31, the Government moved unopposed to reset the briefing schedule

in light of the DOJ’s appropriations being restored on January 25, 2019. See No. 18-17428, Dkt.

# 10.




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



68. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in January 2019

was 222.3.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in February 2019

69. On February 1, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and

also Ordered to Show Cause why M.V.B. should not be terminated as a named plaintiff and

whether the caption should be updated accordingly. See Dkt. # 112. Plaintiffs reviewed the order

and prepared a response to the order on February 8.

70. The parties finalized joint case management statement, which Plaintiffs filed on

February 4. See Dkt. # 113.

71. On February 11, the Government filed its Reply brief in support of its Motion to

Dismiss. See Dkt. # 115. Plaintiffs reviewed and analyzed the Reply brief, and prepared for the

hearing on March 6.

72. The parties also reviewed the government’s privilege log, met and conferred at

length regarding the appropriate scope of the CAR, and prepared for and attended a Case

Management Conference on February 13. See Dkt. # 117. The team also drafted initial discovery

requests.

73. The parties also conferred regarding the proposed class notice, but could not agree.

Plaintiffs drafted and submitted their version of the class notice on February 15, and submitted a

corrected version on February 19, which the Court ultimately adopted on March 6. See Dkt. ##

123-24, 138.

74. The parties conferred and Plaintiffs drafted and filed a Joint Case Management

Statement on February 27.

75. Also on February 27, the Government moved to limit the scope of discovery,

which Plaintiffs reviewed, analyzed, and drafted a response to, which they filed on February 28.

76. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in February 2019

was 101.6.




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



Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in March 2019

77. On March 1, the Government filed its proposed class notice and also filed the

Certified Administrative Record. See Dkt. ## 132, 133. Thereafter, the parties met and conferred

at length regarding the appropriate scope of the CAR.

78. The parties continued to meet and confer regarding a discovery plan, which

Plaintiffs finalized and on March 5, Plaintiffs filed the parties’ joint Rule 26(f) report. See Dkt. #

135.

79. Plaintiffs continued to prepare for and on March 6, the parties attended the hearing

regarding the Government’s motion to dismiss and motion to limit the scope of discovery. See

Dkt. # 136.

80. The Court denied the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, and granted in part the

Government’s Motion to Limit Discovery, both of which orders Manatt reviewed. See Dkt. ##

140, 142.

81. The parties also continued to discuss the Class Notice.

82. Manatt’s appellate attorneys prepared for the upcoming briefing deadlines in the

appellate case until the parties also met and conferred and Manatt strategized regarding the

Government’s intent to dismiss the appeal of the preliminary injunction order, which the

Government did.

83. The Government also answered the Amended Complaint. See Dkt. # 144.

84. The parties met and conferred at length regarding joint discovery letter briefs

concerning Plaintiffs’ A-Files and Plaintiffs’ Request for a Privilege Log, which they finalized

and filed on April 1. See Dkt. ## 145-46.

85. Finally, Manatt began researching and drafting its motion for additional discovery.

86. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in March 2019

was 141.0.




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



Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in April 2019

87. After finalizing and filing the joint discovery letter briefs concerning Plaintiffs’ A-

Files and Plaintiffs’ Request for a Privilege Log on April 1, Manatt prepared for and

telephonically attended the hearing on April 10.

88. Manatt also finished researching and drafting and finalized and filed Plaintiffs’

motion for discovery outside the administrative record on April 8. See Dkt. # 148. Manatt

further reviewed and strategized regarding the Government’s opposition to that motion, which

was filed on April 22, and drafted and submitted its Reply brief on April 29. See Dkt. ## 151,

153.

89. Manatt further reviewed and analyzed the Government’s privilege log, conducted

research, and prepared and submitted a joint discovery letter brief, which was submitted on May

1. See Dkt. # 155.

90. Manatt also continued researching in preparation for its motion for summary

judgment.

91. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in April 2019

was 122.8.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in May 2019

92. Manatt reviewed the Order re: joint discovery letter brief on Defendants’ privilege

log and the Government’s response. See Dkt. ## 156-57.

93. Manatt further prepared for and attended the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Discovery Outside the Administrative Record and Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding the

Privilege Log, which was held on May 15. See Dkt. # 158. The Court ultimately granted

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery Outside the Administrative Record. See Dkt. # 161.

94. Manatt also strategized, researched, drafted, and revised Plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment.

95. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in May 2019 was

101.4.




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



Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in June 2019

96. In June, the parties met and conferred and submitted a joint stipulation to continue

the case management conference in light of the Government’s intent to supplement the CAR. See

Dkt. # 162. Manatt drafted the initial draft of the joint case management statement, which was

filed on July 3. See Dkt. # 167.

97. The Government supplemented the CAR on June 21, which the Manatt team

reviewed and analyzed. See Dkt. # 164.

98. Manatt also continued to edit and revise Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment.

99. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in June 2019 was

57.7.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in July 2019

100. In July, the parties met and conferred and strategized regarding upcoming

scheduling dates, and drafted and submitted a stipulation regarding various case dates and

deadlines, which was granted. See Dkt. ## 170-71.

101. Manatt also reviewed the Court’s pretrial preparation order and order regarding its

in camera review. See Dkt. ## 172-73.

102. Manatt further edited and revised Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and the

parties met and conferred regarding a stipulation to extend the summary judgment page limits.

103. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in July 2019 was

93.5.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in August 2019

104. On August 1, Plaintiffs filed a joint motion for leave to file summary judgment

motions in excess of the page limit. See Dkt. # 174. The Court granted the request as to

Plaintiffs’ preferred page limit. See Dkt. # 175.

105. The parties met and conferred regarding the Government’s request to stay case in

abeyance or alternatively a 30 day extension to file cross-motions for summary judgment.




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



Plaintiffs did not ultimately agree with the Government’s request, and the Government filed its

motion on August 12, which the Court denied for lack of good cause. See Dkt. ## 177-78.

106. Manatt edited, revised, and finalized Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

which it filed on August 12. See Dkt. # 179. Manatt also reviewed, analyzed, researched, and

prepared its opposition to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed the same day.

See Dkt. # 180.

107. Manatt also conferred and strategized with the State of California regarding its

request for leave to file an Amicus Brief in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

See Dkt. ## 181-82.

108. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in August 2019

was 178.1.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in September 2019

109. In September, Manatt continued researching, drafting, editing, revising, and

finalizing its Opposition to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which it filed on

September 12. See Dkt. # 185. Manatt also drafted, revised, and finalized the Reply Brief in

support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which it filed on September 26. See Dkt. #

195.

110. The parties also engaged in settlement discussions and responded to the Court’s

Orders re: ADR. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu for a settlement

conference. Manatt prepared for and attended the settlement conference planning call on

September 24. See Dkt. # 194.

111. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in September

2019 was 173.6.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in October 2019

112. The parties attended a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Ryu on

October 3, 4, and 11. See Dkt. ## 199, 202-03. Plaintiffs drafted and filed a joint motion to

continue the summary judgment hearing in light of the settlement negotiations, which was

granted. See Dkt. ## 200-01.




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



113. Manatt also reviewed and responded to the Court’s Order re: Case Status, filed a

joint stipulation to reset pre-trial conference and related deadlines, which was granted. See Dkt.

## 206-08.

114. The parties were engaged in ongoing correspondence regarding settlement

negotiations and reached a settlement and moved for preliminary approval of settlement on

October 25, which was granted. See Dkt. ## 209-11, 215. They also prepared for and attended

the telephonic hearing regarding the same. See Dkt. ## 217-19. They also began drafting the

class notice.

115. Manatt also conducted research regarding entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).

116. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in October 2019

was 237.5.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in November 2019

117. In November, the parties continued to meet and confer regarding the amount of

attorneys’ fees Plaintiffs’ seek pursuant to EAJA. Manatt also continued to conduct case research

and strategize regarding the same, and began drafting its Motion for EAJA Fees and supporting

declaration.

118. In November, the Manatt team also learned of a violation of the PI order and

corresponded with the Government regarding the same.

119. Manatt also prepared and drafted a confidential settlement letter and submitted to

Magistrate Judge Ryu.

120. Manatt also reviewed, analyzed, and corresponded with the Government regarding

issues with the Class List.

121. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in November

2019 was 117.6.

Tasks Performed and Fees Incurred in December 2019

122. The parties attended a telephonic settlement conference before Magistrate Judge

Ryu regarding EAJA Fees and costs on December 3. See Dkt. # 221. The parties did not reach




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



an agreement, so Manatt continued to research and draft its Motion for EAJA Fees and supporting

declaration.

123. The parties continued to meet and confer regarding the Government’s violation of

the Preliminary Injunction and Manatt drafted and filed a notice regarding the Government’s

violation of the Preliminary Injunction order on December 13. See Dkt. # 223-24.

124. The Manatt team also checked all class members they were aware of to determine

whether they were in removal proceedings and not correctly marked as such, and troubleshoot

other such issues with the class list.

125. The parties prepared for and attended the hearing regarding final approval of

settlement and notice. See Dkt. # 227.

126. In total, the amount of hours Manatt expended on these activities in December

2019 was 190.2.

127. The grand total of hours the above 16 Manatt attorneys expended on these

activities from inception through December 18, 2019 was 2,975.2 hours.

Tasks Performed After December 18, 2019

128. Since settling the merits of the case, the parties have continued to negotiate

regarding Plaintiffs’ entitlement to EAJA fees, including analyzing time entries and preparing an

EAJA fees motion.

129. Plaintiffs also became aware of and investigated violations of the Preliminary

Injunction order, prepare their response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, and prepare for the

hearing, scheduled for the end of January.

130. Plaintiffs’ counsel has continued to expend numerous hours attending to these

matters and anticipates continued work, particularly as it relates to investigating and rectifying

additional violations of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction order, and anticipates the fees actually

incurred in this matter will continue to grow.

131. In my experience, the case was managed efficiently with a proper distribution of

time across attorneys given the contentious nature of the case, the condensed timeline, the




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



amount of discovery at issue, and the extreme importance of this case to Plaintiffs and the general

public.

OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS INCURRED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019

132. Plaintiffs incurred significant actual costs, outside of hourly fees, in pursuing the

relief granted through the parties’ Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs submit, through this

declaration, a summarized list of costs.1 As a preliminary note, the costs Plaintiffs originally

sought (let alone the settled upon amount) represent only a fraction of the costs actually incurred

by Class Counsel. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ counsel provided Defendant’s counsel with a costs

summary and demand that represented costs only through September 30, 2019. This demand was

$46,278.19.

133. Since that settlement demand, further costs have been incurred which were not

sought during the ongoing settlement negotiations. This fact only further evidences that the

agreed upon settlement amount of $14,129.30 is reasonable.

134. With respect to each category of costs identified in written settlement

correspondence and demands, I verify the following:

a. Filing Fees: During the lengthy settlement negotiation period, with respect

to all filing fees, Plaintiffs only sought four hundred dollars ($400) for the filing of the initial

class action complaint. Plaintiffs did not, and do not, seek reimbursement of any of the additional

filing fees incurred to date, which include but are not limited to, (i) the filing of the amended class

action complaint; (ii) the motion for preliminary injunction; (iii) the motion to proceed using

pseudonyms; and (iv) the applications to appear in the Northern District of California for the eight

(8) Manatt attorneys who filed notices to appear in this matter.

b. Copies/Binders: During the lengthy settlement negotiation period,

Plaintiffs only sought $1,986.21 for all the internal costs incurred to make the voluminous copies

and binders related to the representation of Plaintiffs in this matter. As the parties are well aware,

this lawsuit involved numerous rounds of briefing, multiple hearings, lengthy discovery disputes, 1 To the extent the Court wishes to see Plaintiffs’ accounting records concerning costs, Plaintiffs are happy to provide these as well for in camera review.




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



and analysis of countless federal case law, which lead to Class Counsel incurring significant

internal costs for copying and preparing binders. The less than $2,000 identified only represents a

fraction of the actual internal costs incurred to prepare all the relevant copies and binders needed

to zealously represent Plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

c. Couriers/FedEx/Postage: During the lengthy settlement negotiation period,

Plaintiffs only sought $5,272.68 for all courier, FedEx, and Postage costs incurred by Class

Counsel. As Defendants are well aware, this lawsuit has been extremely active with filings,

motion practice, discovery, status reports, and meet and confer letters. The costs incurred to serve

and mail the various pleadings, motions, and letters greatly exceeded the total sought by Plaintiffs

during settlement negotiations.

d. Travel Expenses: During the lengthy settlement negotiations period,

Plaintiffs only sought $5,594.29 for all travel expenses incurred in this litigation. As a

preliminary matter, and in an avoidance of wasted costs, Class Counsel never sent more than a

few attorneys to represent Plaintiffs at each of the numerous hearings, status conferences and

settlement conferences. These minimal travel expenses include budget airfare, gas mileage, and

reasonable accommodation costs to attend various hearings and conferences during the pendency

of this lawsuit.

e. Administrative Expenses: During the lengthy settlement negotiation

period, Plaintiffs only sought $6,115.50 for all administrative expenses incurred. These

administrative costs include charges by thirty party companies and individuals providing services

to Class Counsel on behalf of the client. These costs would include preparation of all documents,

exhibits, folders, charts, spreadsheets and other vendor-specific services provided to Manatt in its

representation of Plaintiffs during this lawsuit.

f. Research Charges: As a preliminary matter, Class Counsel spent countless

hours researching the complex legal issues involved in pursuing relief on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Class Counsel incurred significant costs for utilizing legal research engines like Westlaw and

Lexis Nexus. Class Counsel wrote off a vast majority of these costs and only sought $26,816.21




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



in research. This represents a small fraction of the total charges incurred by Class Counsel to

conduct the myriad research required to litigate this matter.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the United States that the

foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 17th day of January, 2020 at Costa Mesa, CA.

_______________________________

Adrianne Marshack


Exhibit A


1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

J.L. et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI, Acting Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.1,

Defendants.

)))))))

))))))

CASE NO. 5:18-CV-4914 NC (DMR)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR COSTS AND FEES

UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

Plaintiffs J.L., J.B.A., M.G.S., and M.D.G.B. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves

and all Class Members, and Defendants U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”);

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, in his official capacity as Acting

Director, USCIS; Chad F. Wolf, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, DHS; and Robert M.

Cowan, in his official capacity as Director, USCIS National Benefits Center, (collectively,

“Defendants”) by and through their attorneys, hereby enter into this Settlement Agreement and Mutual

Release (the “Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement”), as follows:

1. Defendants will pay Plaintiffs eight hundred and seventy five thousand dollars ($875,000) in full

and complete satisfaction of any claims by Plaintiffs for costs, attorneys’ fees, and litigation expenses,

including any interest in connection with the case titled J.L. et al., v. Cuccinelli et al., No. 5:18-CV-

4914-NC (DMR), in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“Settled

Claims for Costs and Fees”).2

1 Chad F. Wolf is the current Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), he is automatically substituted as the proper party in his official capacity.

2 For settlement purposes, the Parties bifurcated the merits and Plaintiffs’ claim for fees and costs in this case. On October 25, 2019, the Parties signed a Proposed Settlement Agreement regarding the merits of this case (see ECF No. 211-2, Ex. A). The Court granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 218) and, after holding a fairness hearing, granted Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement (“Merits Settlement Agreement”) and dismissed the case with prejudice on December 18, 2019 (ECF Nos. 228, 229). The Court retained limited jurisdiction. See ECF No. 229.


2

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

2. Specifically, Defendants will pay costs in the amount of $14,129.30, which are payable pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1), and fees and expenses in the amount of $860,870.70, which are payable

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (collectively “Settlement

Payments”). Plaintiffs agree to provide documentation of said costs if requested by Defendants as

necessary for government accounting processes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

3. The Parties have evaluated the claims and contentions regarding fees and costs, as well as the

risks of continued litigation. The Parties, after taking into account the risk, delay, and the costs of further

litigation, are satisfied that the terms and conditions of this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement are

fair, reasonable, adequate, and equitable, and in both Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ best interests.

The Parties, through their counsel, engaged in arm’s length settlement negotiations, including

three telephonic conference sessions, and a series of written and telephonic correspondence, over a

period of several months, under the direction and supervision of Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu regarding

the terms and conditions of this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement.

This Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement reflects a compromise between the Parties after

considering, inter alia, the lengthy, expensive, and burdensome nature of preparing and litigating any

EAJA motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, including Plaintiffs collecting, reviewing, redacting, and

producing billing records, and Defendants evaluating voluminous records and preparing a detailed

response; the expense, risks, and delay related to an appeal from any judgment regarding the EAJA

motion; and the settlement amount and timing of payment.

Thus, the Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement is not a product of fraud or collusion, and it

satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

4. Defendants will pay the Settlement Payments by electronic transfer to the Manatt, Phelps, &

Phillips, LLP Attorney Client Trust Account (“Account”), consistent with the normal processing

procedures followed by Defendants and the United States Department of the Treasury. In particular,

Defendants require the following additional payment processing information:

a. Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips Tax Identification Number

b. Name of Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips Bank


3

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

c. Address of Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips Bank

d. Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips Client Trust Account Number

e. Bank Routing Number associated with the Manatt, Phelps, & Phillips Client Trust

Account

5. After the Court’s final approval of this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel

immediately will provide Defendants’ counsel all required payment processing information. Upon

receipt of all required payment processing information from Plaintiffs, Defendants promptly will prepare

and submit all required documentation necessary for processing and disbursement of the Settlement

Payments to ensure that payment is made as soon as practicable, and no later than 60 calendar days from

the date of the Court’s final approval of this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement, or the date when

Defendants receive from Plaintiffs all required payment processing information, whichever is later.

6. Upon execution of this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement and completion of the above-

described acts, Plaintiffs shall release and forever discharge Defendants and their successors, the United

States of America, and any department, agency, or establishment of the United States, and any officers,

employees, agents, successors, or assigns of such department, agency, or establishment, from any and all

past, present, or future claims for costs, attorneys’ fees, or litigation expenses in connection with this

case, J.L. et al., v. Cuccinelli et al., No. 5:18-CV-4914-NC (DMR). Notwithstanding the foregoing

releases, nothing in this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement bars or prohibits either of the Parties from

seeking to apply or enforce this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement, the final judgment (ECF No.

229), any Court order relating to the present or any future Order to Show Cause regarding the

Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 224), or the Merits Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 211-2), but no

Party may seek any additional legal fees or costs for any work expended in connection with such

application or enforcement.

7. The Parties intend this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement to settle all claims relating to fees

and costs expended in connection with this case, J.L. et al., v. Cuccinelli et al., No. 5:18-CV-4914-NC

(DMR). Accordingly, Plaintiffs agree that the instant Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement of $875,000

resolves any and all monetary compensatory sanctions that Plaintiffs could have requested from the


4

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

Court regarding work Plaintiffs have expended or will expend relating to the Joint Notice of Removals

(ECF No. 223) and the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 224) regarding individuals N.P.G., E.A.,

and R.M.N. (see ECF No. 227), in connection with the October 24, 2018 Preliminary Injunction (ECF

No. 49),3 if the Court were to find Defendants in contempt of the Preliminary Injunction or other Court

Order.

8. The Parties agree that only two possible exceptions may exist to the Parties’ understanding and

agreement that this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement settles all claims relating to fees and costs

related to in connection with this case.

First, while Plaintiffs will forgo compensatory sanctions for fees and costs for work as described

in Paragraph 7, if Defendants disclose any additional individuals removed without notice in possible

violation of the Preliminary Injunction in their January 17, 2020 Response to the Court’s Minute Order

(ECF No. 227), Plaintiffs reserve the right to request that the Court award compensatory sanctions of no

more than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) total for any past, present, or future work expended to

remedy such identified possible violations, as appropriate. Defendants reserve the right to oppose such

request.

Second, if any possible Preliminary Injunction violations are discovered after Defendants’

January 17, 2020 Response that Defendants did not include in their January 17, 2020 Response,

Plaintiffs may seek monetary compensatory sanctions, without a cap, including those based on the value

of work completed, to seek enforcement of the Court’s Order and redress those additional violations.

Defendants reserve the right to oppose such request.

9. The Parties acknowledge that this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement is entered into solely for

the purpose of settling and compromising any claims for costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred in

this action without further litigation, and that the Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement will not be

construed as evidence or as an admission regarding any issues of law or fact, or regarding the truth or

validity of any allegation or claim raised in this action, or as evidence or as an admission by Defendants

3 On December 18, 2019, the Court issued a final judgment, approving the Merits Settlement Agreement and dismissing this case. The Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 49) automatically terminated upon the Court’s issuance of the judgment. See ECF No. 228.


5

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

regarding Plaintiffs’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs or expenses. This Costs and

Fees Settlement Agreement will not be used in any manner to establish liability for fees, amounts, or

hourly rates in any other case or proceeding.

10. This Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts on

behalf of each of the Parties by their attorneys of record, and it becomes effective on the date as of

which all Parties have executed this Costs and Fees Agreement. Facsimiles and PDF versions of

signatures will constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes of this Costs and Fees Agreement,

will have the same force and effect as original signatures, and will be equally admissible in any

proceeding to enforce this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement as though an original.

11. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby AGREED, by and among the Parties to this Costs and Fees

Settlement Agreement, through their respective attorneys, subject to the approval of the Court pursuant

to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in consideration of the benefits flowing to the

Parties hereto from this Costs and Fees Settlement Agreement, that the Settled Claims for Costs and

Fees shall be compromised, settled, forever released, barred, and dismissed with prejudice, upon and

subject to the above terms and conditions./ / /


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED this 14th day of January 2020.

OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION DISTRICT COURT SECTION CIVIL DIVISION, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE

JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY Director, District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation

JEFFREYS. ROBINS Deputy Director, District Court Section Office of Immigration Litigation

~ra:~:~1-Senior Litigation Counsel United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 868 Washington, DC 20044 Telephone No.: (202) 616-3466 Email: [email protected] --~-

By: \~V--CA THERINE M. RENO Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District I ection

Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division Office of Immigration Litigation District Court Section

6


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

MANA TT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP MATTHEW KANNY ADRIANNE MARSHACK SIRENA CASTILLO

PUBLIC COUNSEL JUDY LONDON SARA VANHOFWEGEN MARY TANAGHO ROSS

LA WYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CNIL RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

BREE BERNWANGER ~ t_(,J

By: (Wn~ Adrianne Marshack Attorneys for Plaintiffs J .L., M.D.G.B., J .B.A., and M.G.S., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

7


MANATT, PHELPS &PHILLIPS, LLP


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 1

DECLARATION OF ADRIANNE MARSHACK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF EAJA FEES AND COSTS SETTLEMENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 17, 2020, the foregoing document was electronically filed

with the Clerk of the Court for U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, through the

CM/ECF system. All parties are registered CM/ECF users and will be served through the CM/ECF

system.

By:/s/ Kathleen Wise__________


Motions5:18-cv-04914-NC J.L. et al v. Lee Francis Cissna et al CASE CLOSED on 12/18/2019

ADRMOP,CLOSED,CONSENT,REFSET-DMR

U.S. District Court

California Northern District

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered by Wise, Kathleen on 1/17/2020 at 1:34 PM PST and filed on 1/17/2020 Case Name: J.L. et al v. Lee Francis Cissna et alCase Number: 5:18-cv-04914-NCFiler: J.B.A.

J.L.M.D.G.B.M.G.S.

WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 12/18/2019Document Number: 237

Docket Text: MOTION for Settlement Approval of EAJA Fees and Costs Settlement Agreement filed by J.B.A.,J.L., M.D.G.B., M.G.S.. Motion Hearing set for 2/26/2020 01:00 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 5, 4thFloor before Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. Responses due by 1/31/2020. Replies due by 2/7/2020.(Attachments: # (1) Adrianne Marshack Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement ofEAJA Fees and Costs, # (2) Mary Tanagho Ross Declaration ISO Motion for Approval ofSettlement of EAJA Fees and Costs, # (3) Bree Bernwanger Declaration ISO Motion for Approvalof Settlement of EAJA Fees and Costs, # (4) Sara Van Hofwegen Declaration ISO Motion forApproval of Settlement of EAJA Fees and Costs, # (5) Kristen Jackson Declaration ISO Motionfor Approval of Settlement of EAJA Fees and Costs, # (6) [Proposed] Order Approving Settlementof EAJA Fees and Costs)(Wise, Kathleen) (Filed on 1/17/2020)

5:18-cv-04914-NC Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Adrianne Elizabeth Marshack [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Allison Claire Nelson [email protected], [email protected]

Ari Nazarov [email protected]

Bree Ann Bernwanger , Bernw [email protected]

Catherine McGann Reno [email protected]

Domonique C Alcaraz [email protected]

Elianis N Perez [email protected]

J. Max Weintraub [email protected], [email protected]

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?330565

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?330565

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/035018863173?caseid=330565&de_seq_num=770&magic_num=MAGIC

James J Wen [email protected]

Judith Maura London [email protected]

Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez [email protected]

Kathleen Elizabeth Ingra Wise [email protected], [email protected]

Keith Lee Wurster [email protected], [email protected]

Kenneth John Ian [email protected], [email protected]

Lauren Fascett [email protected]

Linda Susan Dakin-Grimm [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Mary Tanagho Ross [email protected]

Matthew Brent Golper [email protected], [email protected]

Matthew P. Kanny [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Michael Edward Olsen , Jr [email protected], [email protected]

Michael Gregory Nordon [email protected], [email protected]

Michael Thomas Pyle [email protected], [email protected]

Nicholas Frederic Daum [email protected], [email protected]

Nicole Joann Thomas-Dorris [email protected]

Sara Lynn Van Hofwegen [email protected]

Sirena Peleka Castillo [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

5:18-cv-04914-NC Please see Local Rule 5-5; Notice has NOT been electronically mailed to:

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

Document description:Main Document Original filename:C:\fakepath\01 Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of EAJA Fees and Costs Settlement.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=1/17/2020] [FileNumber=16601558-0][302287ecf08c085163f484ac15c6bff2c6c9550bab6409ef45184305c2da50212370cc6fa4ba0783359fbd343a4b46d4e5a27a57699758eaa9aabf5001fc41a6]]Document description: Adrianne Marshack Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement of EAJA Feesand CostsOriginal filename:C:\fakepath\02 Adrianne Marshack Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement ofEAJA Fees and Costs.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=1/17/2020] [FileNumber=16601558-1]

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/localrules/civil#SERVICE

[13ae32d927721823988c30274e6bd5663b64a426b4fb31cb73f2f5bd45166ba0ecbd63dd5112bb05404439a4b7bb46a61c118439549506d8c838955fead29a70]]Document description: Mary Tanagho Ross Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement of EAJA Feesand CostsOriginal filename:C:\fakepath\03 Mary Tanagho Ross Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement ofEAJA Fees and Costs.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=1/17/2020] [FileNumber=16601558-2][65e14caa691f47e7d396d9479a6803f02b48b6ee4411197dcd70cd43c962e930ce2fbe5d7666172930928f163d3e5f8a833c394e4d92db292fa53b265f3669a8]]Document description: Bree Bernwanger Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement of EAJA Fees andCostsOriginal filename:C:\fakepath\04 Bree Bernwanger Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement of EAJAFees and Costs.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=1/17/2020] [FileNumber=16601558-3][a47ff8c89cb930ec324dd08b82ca0c35c997295a3bd987a5cefdbe6f2d67bb48ddeff8d9353d01114394e08cab739c64cd95ce21eef0dc1ea6f70f8b96505f1a]]Document description: Sara Van Hofwegen Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement of EAJA Feesand CostsOriginal filename:C:\fakepath\05 Sara Van Hofwegen Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement ofEAJA Fees and Costs.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=1/17/2020] [FileNumber=16601558-4][1f2aeec18eb9a60697ad6798bcd4d90137ed1ac0d5aa6cb57c57558f4f2a6b21a3f8498073bb2b66cff79d297efabff90a583c8b3cb8252a7969f81699ea4917]]Document description: Kristen Jackson Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement of EAJA Fees andCostsOriginal filename:C:\fakepath\06 Kristen Jackson Declaration ISO Motion for Approval of Settlement of EAJAFees and Costs.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=1/17/2020] [FileNumber=16601558-5][21e76e1f508a4b76458e4d77f05528b46c3a53cc057be64b1039eea327b7918d77c29fc40036dcc746b0f730c489f8b9ce34ffc9495c8bfb9aa46b4a4c2e6a5d]]Document description: [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement of EAJA Fees and CostsOriginal filename:C:\fakepath\07 [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement of EAJA Fees and Costs.pdfElectronic document Stamp:[STAMP CANDStamp_ID=977336130 [Date=1/17/2020] [FileNumber=16601558-6][8677a2cbdc51048bc2cf0a551e594f928dbf1c4b3f7f7928764534055cd9ef94fa0dd214785a8d2ff346eb89d9faed35f5abdddb8ca24382e51120cc3e46cb90]]

case 5:18-cv-04914-nc document 237-1 filed 01/17/20 page …case no. 5:18-cv-4914 declaration of...

Documents