The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ANGELEEN KIRSCHBAUM, an individual,
Plaintiff, Case No. 1:22-cv-1394-CL
v.
ORDER
RISE LAW GROUP INC., a domestic business
corporation, MARYANNE PITCHER, an
individual, and JAMIE HAZLETT, an
indivual,
Defendants.
___________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 81),
and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Defendants filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. I have reviewed the file of this
case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus.
Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
1 –ORDER
After reviewing the record, including briefings on Plaintiff’s (successful) Motion to
Quash, Defendants’ (unsuccessful) Motion for Summary Judgment, the F&R and related
briefings and objections, and the transcript of the November 29, 2023 oral argument, the Court is
left with the impression that Judge Clarke said it best: “While the Defendants were well within
their rights to litigate this case as zealously as they deemed appropriate, they cannot now
complain about the hours billed in response to this tactic.” F&R, 12.
Well before the Rule 16 hearing, and well before even conferring with Plaintiff as
required by Rule 26, Defendants had clearly dug in their heels. For example, despite Rule 26(d)’s
explicit prohibition—absent circumstances not present here—on any party seeking discovery
before the required conferral conference, Defendants plowed ahead and immediately scheduled
depositions. They ignored Plaintiff’s objection that this “damn the torpedoes” approach flaunted
the federal rules. Ultimately, Plaintiff had to seek and, over Defendants’ objection, receive, a
protective order.
Many factors appear to have impacted Defendants’ decision to vigorously defend
themselves: they viewed themselves as a good employer who treated their employees well; they
did not believe Plaintiff worked overtime; and they were concerned that “if a quick payout was
tendered in this matter, what message it would send [to] other properly classified employees.”1
Hazlett Decl. ¶ 9; ECF No. 90. As noted by Judge Clarke, Defendants were well within their
rights to choose this litigation tactic. However, it comes as no surprise that this choice drove up
the costs for all parties and led to Plaintiff digging in her own heels. In adopting the F&R, the
1 Defendants’ view of the merit of Plaintiff’s claims is perhaps best portrayed by their reference to Heather Aragon,
another former RISE Law Group employee who has a similar, ongoing federal wage case, as “Plaintiff’s co-
conspirator.” Defs’ Obj. to F&R, 3; ECF No. 89. This merely demonstrates that this litigation has become very
personal for Defendants, who represent themselves in both cases.
2 –ORDER
Court does not mean to imply that Plaintiff went out of her way to limit costs and Defendants
went out of their way to increase costs. Instead, both parties, to some extent, appear to have
advanced a scorched earth policy. But because Plaintiff prevailed “on all claims,” Defendants are
obligated to pay for all fees reasonably occurred. The Court agrees with Judge Clarke that given
the circumstances—where the parties and the attorneys appeared to abandon any good faith
attempts at mutually agreeing to proceed in a manner that would limit costs—all of the fees,
hours, and costs sought are reasonable.
Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 81) is ADOPTED in
full. Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED. Attorney fees in the amount of
$142,560.00 and costs in the amount of $4,073.32 are awarded to Plaintiff’s attorneys Stephanie
Brown and David Shuck.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of May, 2024.
_______/s/ Michael J. McShane________
Michael McShane
United States District Judge
3 –ORDER