Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 20STCV42430, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV42430    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: 74

Jayson Toquia Fama v. Astro Aluminum Treating Co., Inc.

Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND 

            This action arises from an employment dispute.

            On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff Jayson Toquia Fama (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Astro Aluminum Treating Co., Inc. (Defendant).

            On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed this motion for attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $108,822.91 in attorney fees and costs.

EVIDENCE

            The court overrules Defendant’s evidentiary objections.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1), “If the employee or consumer withdraws the claim from arbitration and proceeds in a court of appropriate jurisdiction . . . [t]he employee or consumer may bring a motion . . . to recover all attorney’s fees and costs associated with the abandoned arbitration proceeding.”

DISCUSSION 

            On June 7, 2023, the court found that Defendant breached the arbitration agreement in place between the parties. Plaintiff has withdrawn his claim from arbitration and now pursues his action here. Consequently, Plaintiff may recover attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1). Defendant in turn contends the fee claim is unreasonable.

            The attorney bears the burden of proof as to reasonableness of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(5).) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) A plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (See Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) “In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488, quoting Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)

            To begin, the court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s proposed hourly rates reasonable. Defendant disagrees, but “[t]he experienced trial judge is the best judge of value of professional services rendered in his court.”” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) Next, Plaintiff’s counsel has furnished billing invoices. (Koulloukian Decl., ¶ 9; Ex. 1; Ex. 2.) But Defendant has directed the court’s attention to specific entries and argues in part that they are redundant. (Herman Decl., ¶¶ 9, 12; Ex. 2; Ex. 10.) The court notes that roughly 75 percent of managing partner Nazo Koulloukian billing entries duplicate those of associate Christine Harmandayan. Accordingly, the court will award Nazo Koulloukian 25 percent of his requested hours for a sum of $15,474.38 ((.25 x 117.9) x $525). The court will award Christine Harmandayan the total amount of her requested attorney fees: $44,440.

            Defendant also points out that the discovery work Plaintiff’s counsel billed during the abandoned arbitration will be used in this action. However, Defendant has not cited authority in support of the proposition that work billed during the abandoned arbitration is no longer associated with that proceeding because the work will be relied upon in subsequent litigation. Nor has Defendant persuaded the court that Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, subdivision (c)(1), may be interpreted in this manner. Accordingly, the court will not deduct discovery fees and costs from Plaintiff’s award. Thus, the court will award Plaintiff attorney fees and costs in the sum of $62,399.79 ($15,474.38 (Koulloukian’s attorney fees) + $44,440 (Harmandayan’s attorney fees) + $2,485.41 (costs).)

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorney fees and costs. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s counsel $62,399.79 by January 7, 2023.

Plaintiff shall give notice.