Judge: Bradley S. Phillips, Case: 24STCV01829, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and "cc" all other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

2. For any motion where no parties submit on the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT ON A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 24STCV01829    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 26

Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement and Business & Professions Code § 22446.5(b).  Plaintiff seeks total fees of $43,875, based on an alleged lodestar of $29,250 and a multiplier of 1.5.  Defendants argue that the requested fees are unreasonable and that the Court should either deny fees altogether or reduce them to $3,500.  The Court rejects both parties’ positions.

The Court finds that Plaintiff counsel’s requested hourly rate of $750/hour is within the range of reasonableness for an attorney of his experience in this area of the law.  That level of experience, however, necessarily translates to an expectation of a high level of efficiency in the filing and prosecution of the case, which is one of many very similar ones that have been filed by this attorney.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for 12 hours of fees for “[p]re-filing investigation” is insufficiently supported and unreasonable.  The Court finds that 4 hours is a reasonable amount of time for Plaintiff’s counsel to have spent on pre-filing investigation, which appears to have comprised principally Internet searches. 

The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for 3.7 hours of his time at $750/hour for tabulation of costs, preparation and filing of a memorandum of costs, and tabulation of billable hours is unreasonable and unjustified.  These are essentially clerical tasks; Plaintiff does not, however, provide any evidence concerning an appropriate billable rate for a clerk or paralegal to perform these tasks.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for fees for 8 hours of “anticipated” post-Judgment monitoring is excessive.  Counsel declares he “noted that Defendants removed all public offerings for immigration services covered by the ICA.”  That should reasonably have required at most 30 minutes of his time.  Any further fees for post-Judgment work would be entirely speculative.

The Court further finds that a multiplier is not justified in this case.  Plaintiff’s counsel appears to have filed an essentially boilerplate complaint, similar to ones he had previously filed, and then immediately obtained agreement by Defendants to the relief Plaintiff sought.  Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate already incorporates a premium for the value of Plaintiff’s experience in this area of the law.

For these reasons, the Court reduces the lodestar hours to 19.8 (39 hours – 19.2 hours), and the lodestar amount to $14,850.  The Court denies Plaintiff’s request for a multiplier.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $14,850.