Docstoc

388 P Req for Clarification re Entry of Judgment

Document Sample
388 P Req for Clarification re Entry of Judgment Powered By Docstoc
					Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-DLB
(213) 992-3299 TELEPHONE (213) 596-0487 FACSIMILE

Document 388

Filed 06/17/2009

Page 1 of 1
ELEE@LOEL.COM E-MAIL WWW.LOEL.COM WEBSITE

L A W

E U G E N E

O F F I C E

L E E

O F

555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 3100 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013-1010

June 17, 2009 VIA CM/ECF Hon. Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge United States District Court Eastern District of California 2500 Tulare St, Crtrm. 3 Fresno, California Re: Filing of Cost Bill / Entry of Judgment Jadwin v County of Kern, et al. (1:07-cv-26-OWW-DLB) 100011.001

To the Honorable Court: Local Rule 54-292 requires the prevailing party to serve and file a bill of costs within “ten (10) days after entry of judgment or order under which costs may be claimed”. On June 8, 2009, the clerk made a docket entry (Doc. 385) noting that “The jury returns a verdict for the plaintiff”, and “The Court orders partial judgment for the plaintiff to be entered”. Plaintiff would appreciate clarification whether he is required to file his bill of costs tomorrow (June 18, 2009), which is 10 days after Doc. 385 was recorded on the docket. Given that two counts remain to be determined by this Court in a bench trial, Plaintiff respectfully suggests that it would be more judicially efficient to postpone submission of Plaintiff’s bill of costs (and petition for attorney fees) until after final and complete judgment has been entered in this action. Given the shortness of time, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court’s guidance on this issue as soon as is convenient for the Court. Plaintiff had previously sent an email to the Court inquiring about entry of judgment. Respectfully,

EUGENE D. LEE cc: Mark A. Wasser


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: David F. Jadwin v. Kern County: 1:07-cv-26 in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division before Judge Oliver W. Wanger. This was a 2009 federal employment lawsuit that went to a bench and jury trial resulting in a unanimous verdict and significant judgment for the plaintiff employee. Issues involved violations of medical leave and disability discrimination laws, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process violation. Plaintiff was represented by Eugene Lee, a Los Angeles, California employment lawyer.