Oscar Ramos v. Lesa Marie Gonzalez, et al.

Ramos · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · November 10, 2025 · No. 2:24-cv-01261-CSK

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Plaintiff Oscar Ramos's request for expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) following Defendants' failure to respond to discovery and to oppose the motion to compel. The court awards $700 in attorney's fees, calculated as two hours at $350 per hour, payable within 21 days. The court also orders Defendants to file notice upon payment and directs Plaintiff to file a status report regarding further proceedings and potential sanctions.

Holdings

  1. When a court grants a motion to compel, it must award the moving party its reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, unless one of Rule 37(a)(5)(A)'s exceptions applies. Because none of the exceptions was established, Plaintiff was entitled to an award.
  2. The requested $700 fee was reasonable because it represented two reasonably expended hours at a $350 hourly rate, which was reasonable for counsel's experience and lower than the prevailing Sacramento market rate for comparable legal work.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, after obtaining an order compelling discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A).
  2. Whether the requested $700 attorney's-fee award was reasonable under the lodestar method.
  3. What further status-reporting obligation should be imposed based on Defendants' failure to comply with the discovery order.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
  • Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 868 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
  • Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 500, 502 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…