Even though the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors sent out a press release saying they had prevailed in the long-running case involving Jerry Cox, it doesn’t appear the case is anywhere near being concluded.
The Cox case has been dragging out in federal court for years and a couple of months ago, there was a ruling by a federal judge granting Mariposa County and the other parties involved a summary judgment.
In America, though, there are federal appeals courts all over the country in place to allow people to contest the rulings of federal district courts.
Cox has filed that appeal.
The appeal was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit located in San Francisco. It was filed on July 16 and the court has assigned the case a number and listed key dates in which the parties have to file various documents.
Cox, whose 630-acre Bison Creek Ranch property was placed in receivership by the Mariposa County Superior Court years ago and then sold, filed the appeal listing all of the parties which have been involved in the case. That includes Mariposa County, former Mariposa County Sheriff’s Deputy William Atkinson, current Mariposa County Sheriff’s Deputy Wesley Smith and Ashley Harris, a woman who falsely accused Cox of rape.
In a new twist, the lawyers for Harris have filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California asking for close to $1 million in attorneys’ fees.
Cox filed the case against the county and the others in August 2019 and it has dragged through court since that time. That includes two judges who were involved in the case retiring as well as a new judge being appointed just this year.
However, the presiding judge in the case, Lee H. Rosenthal, who works in a Houston, Texas, federal court, issued her ruling granting the county, the two deputies and Harris summary judgment on June 15.
That’s when Mariposa County officials sent out the press release proclaiming victory in the case even though nearly everyone involved in this saga has understood no matter who prevailed at the federal district court level, the case would be appealed.
To date, the county has not released any information about how much money the county taxpayers have spent on attorneys’ fees over the years in this case. State law allows the county to withhold that information though it does not prohibit the county supervisors from releasing the information to the public.
The new filing by Harris asking for attorneys fees could be a clue involving how much has been spent on the other attorneys involved in the case.
The case
The matter of Cox v. Mariposa County is complicated and dates back more than a decade.
It involves 16 rape charges filed against Cox by Mariposa County after he was accused by Harris, who Cox met through the online dating site farmersonly.com. That case involved an investigation by the two deputies, Atkinson and Smith, which is why they are parties to the matter.
On Friday, Nov. 13, 2015, Atkinson and Smith interviewed Harris about her accusations of rape. She told investigators she met Cox on the dating website and during their conversations, she agreed to come to the ranch.
Harris claimed she was locked in a room without phone service after being sexually assaulted by Cox, though phone records would later show she had been texting her friends and family members during the time she claimed to be held captive.
The case was eventually turned over to then District Attorney Thomas Cooke, who has since died. Cooke pursed the case for two years before deciding to file a motion to drop the matter.
At hearing in Mariposa County Superior Court lasted less than five minutes and former Judge Dana Walton agreed to drop the charges. That was on Aug. 14, 2017.
Walton is the same judge who would eventual approve the receivership as well as the sale of Cox’s land.
Cooke would only say he didn’t feel he could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
It was learned the prior June, Harris testified in another case she had never been a victim of sexual assault or abuse. At a later point when Cooke was running for reelection, he did state on video at Happy Burger Diner that was the reason he dropped the charges against Cox.
On top of all of this, during this same period of time, the county was pursuing a code violation case against Cox.
It was March 13, 2017, when the county brought a motion to the Mariposa County Superior Court to place the property in receivership based on 101 code violations at the ranch.
That county has claimed since the outset the rape case and the code violation case were unrelated.
But former federal Judge Anthony Ishii, who first handled the federal case but has since retired, wrote a lengthy statement and said, in his opinion, there was little doubt the county was co-mingling cases.
During a hearing last year, Judge Rosenthal made a point to bring up Ishii’s opinion when the county continued to claim there was no connection between the cases.
Since that time, the case wound its way through the federal court system, with many depositions taken in preparation for what many thought would be either a settlement by the parties or a trial.
Neither happened because Judge Rosenthal ruled in favor of the county, the two deputies and Harris, which has prompted the appeal.
Key dates
The appeals paperwork on file with the Ninth Circuit lists key dates in which all of the parties have to filed documents.
That means the Mariposa County taxpayers are still involved in the lawyer fees for the Cox matter — and could be for a long time to come. In the court documents, the attorneys for the county are listed as Brian T. Chu and Nicolas L. Jaber, both from the firm Serviam By Wright, which has represented the county for years. In fact, that firm is an offshoot of the firm Silver & Wright, which first represented the county in the receivership case.
Appeals to the Ninth Circuit generally take 15-22 months, according to statistics compiled by court watchdog groups. The groups added that in “complicated” civil cases, it could take even longer.
No matter the outcome, either party could then take one more step and appeal it to the United States Supreme Court.
But for now, the lawyers involved in the case are likely busy preparing documents for upcoming deadlines required by the court.
One interesting deadline listed by the court which has already passed is a “mediation questionnaire” which was due by July 21. No information about that is available on the website which holds the documents.
The order from the court of appeals in San Francisco requires Cox to submit the “appeal opening brief” by Aug. 25.
Briefs answering Cox’s opening salvo are due by Sept. 24. That includes Mariposa County, Harris, Atkinson and Smith. The documents filed indicate the county’s law firm is representing Atkinson and Smith in the appeal. The two had separate attorneys at earlier points in the case.
Cox is still being represented by Oakland attorney Fred Geonetta and it also lists Kenneth Frucht as representing Cox.
According to Frucht’s website, he has extensive experience at the appellate level.
“Mr. Frucht has extensive trial experience in both state and federal courtrooms, and he has successfully litigated appeals in both the state and federal courts of appeal,” it reads.
Harris is being represented by the high-powered Southern California firm of Jenner & Block and lists lawyers Anna Marie Van Housen and Madaline P. Skitzki.
Harris seeks big money
That same law firm has also filed a motion for attorneys’ fees against Cox. That was filed on July 13 in the federal court in Fresno, which is where the summary judgment was issued in favor of the county, the two deputies and Harris.
The filing lists many expenses related to the case, in which this firm has been involved for six years.
The attorneys write in the court filing they are willing to take a 75 percent reduction in the fees which they have identified related to representing Harris.
The total amount, according to the filing, is $3,075,507 “in fees for attorneys and paralegals who billed over 50 hours to the case from April 2019 to June 2026,” which is the period that firm represented Harris.
However, the filing goes on to state that instead of asking for that amount, they are willing to reduce it to $768,876, a 75 percent decrease. They are, however, asking for an additional $93,895 in out-of-pocket expenses in the case.
The filing states that 21 attorneys and four paralegals have worked the case over the years. Rates for the attorneys range from $580 an hour to $1,665 per hour, the documents indicate. The paralegal rate is listed at $685 per hour.
Buried deep in the document, the filing states: “Jenner represented Harris on a pro bono basis without charging her for services.”
It remains unclear why the firm is asking for the fees after representing Harris for free though it is a legal maneuver used in various pro bono cases. Generally, it is asking the losing party for the fees and the firm cannot turn around and bill the client.
The fees charged in this case are eye-opening in some instances.
For the attorneys, the highest amount is for Jenna Conwisar, in which the firm says billing would be $647,667, though they are agreeing to accept $161,916.
For attorney Jose Sandoval, the billing indicates $324,211 would have been billed though he is willing to take $81,052. There are 10 other attorneys listed on the document, with four of them billing more than $300,000 each.
Another document filed by the firm lists the out-of-pocket expenses they are requesting in full, which totals close to $94,000.
There are two pages that list “other professional services” and total more than $11,000.
The transcripts section asks for more than $9,000 for the firm Steno Agency, Inc.
The biggest line item by far is for the Berkeley Research Group LLC, which lists “experts — professional services” through Jan. 31, 2025, at a cost of $44,171. There is another $22,913 listed for that same group for “other professional services.”
The law firm also drafted a proposed order for the court but no action has yet been taken by Judge Rosenthal.
Responses (0)