Estate of Sherrano Stingley v. County of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ESTATE OF SHERRANO STINGLEY, et No. 2:23-cv-00255-TLN-AC al., 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 The Court reviewed Defendants’ Response and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees incurred in responding to Defendants’ Request for Reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s September 27, 2023 Order (ECF No. 32) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 72(a). (ECF No. 57.) As set forth in the Court’s May 9, 2024 Order, the Court finds Defendants’ Rule 72(a) objections were meritless and the fees Plaintiffs incurred in responding to Defendants’ Rule 72(a) objections are compensable under Rule 37. (ECF No. 53.) Furthermore, the Court finds Defendants’ Rule 72(a) objections were not substantially justified because there was no “genuine dispute” as to any of the issues raised, and reasonable people could not differ as to the appropriateness of the objections. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988).…