Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Locatelli v. Hotel California by the Sea LLC, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling
The motion for attorneys fees by plaintiff Carol Locatelli and against defendant Hotel California by the Sea, LLC, (“Hotel”) is GRANTED in part.
Plaintiff was the prevailing party following a court trial as set forth in the judgment entered 1/11/23. Plaintiff seeks recovery of attorney’s fees based on Government Code §12965. “A trial court has discretion to award attorney's fees and costs to the party prevailing in a FEHA action. ‘In actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion may award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs....’ (Gov.Code, § 12965, subd. (b).) We review the trial court's failure to award attorney's fees under an abuse of discretion standard.” (Steele v. Jensen Instrument Co. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 326, 331) Hotel does not contest the plaintiff’s right to recover fees under FEHA.
The Court has discretion as to determining reasonable hourly rate. “The courts repeatedly have stated that the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her courtroom (see, e.g., Ketchum v Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132), and this includes the determination of the hourly rate that will be used in the lodestar calculus. (See, e.g., Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 700–703.) In making its calculation, the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009), the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied (Syers Properties at p. 700, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 456), and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases. (Heritage, at p. 1009)” (569 E. Cnty. Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 426, 436–37) “The ‘experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court....’ ” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49)
Plaintiff’s motion is accompanied by a document itemizing the billing by 22 different timekeepers who are either attorneys or paralegals/legal assistants/law clerks/bookkeepers/reception. Included on this document are the proposed billing rates for which plaintiff seeks recover in the subject motion.
The Court finds, based on its experience with other similar cases, familiarity with the legal market, knowledge of this litigation prior to trial and its involvement in the court trial, that the reasonable rates for reimbursement of attorney’s fees is $500 per hour for Mr. Elihu and $400 per hour for the other six attorneys. This determination is also based in part on the declarations Mr. Moorhead previously submitted in this litigation in connection with a discovery motions. For example, on 12/6/19 he stated that his hourly rate was $400 per hour (ROA 32 at ¶11) Mr. Moorhead also reiterated his billing rate of $400 in his 11/5/20 declaration. (ROA 218 at ¶25) Mr. Moorhead states that although multiple lawyers have submitted time entries, he was the attorney assigned to do all of the work on the case and such supports the conclusion that $400 is a reasonable rate for the work performed in this case. (Moorhead Decl. at ¶25) The Court also notes inconsistencies between the declarations submitted in support of the subject motion and those previously submitted in connection with the discovery motions. For example, while Mr. Moorhead told this court in 2019 that his billing rate was $400 per hour for preparing the discovery motion, in the detailed time sheet submitted by the plaintiff along with the subject motion, it shows the work done on the 2019 discovery motion but lists the billing rate at $650/hr. for drafting the motion. With regard to the hourly rates charged by the 12 persons who generally were considered “paralegals,” the Court finds that $175/hr is the reasonable rate.
With regard to the amount of time submitted by the attorneys, based on the Court’s review of the itemized billing report submitted by Plaintiff, the Court awards fees based on 94% of the time spent by the seven attorneys. Much of the 6% reduction is due to the fact that the entries reflect routine communications within the office regarding such items as scheduling or office processes.
For the three timekeepers with initials JTA, RAB and STN who are listed as “reception,” “accounting” and “legal assistant,” respectively, the tasks performed appear to be entirely administrative and therefore the motion to recover for their time in the total amount of $1,509.70 is DENIED.
For the other 12 “paralegals,” the Court finds that 33.2% of the time spent related to administrative tasks. It is apparent from the billing entries that “paralegals” were often used to perform tasks of a legal assistant or scheduler. Many of the entries are not legal in nature but are more in the form of support for the attorney such as contacting a reporter to schedule a depo or obtain the depo transcripts, calendaring, filing documents with the court, preparing the POS on discovery, uploading documents to firm’s system, sending copies of documents within the firm, reminders of upcoming dates, etc.
Based on the foregoing, the recoverable attorneys fees are $182,942.80. [$183,720 (Mr. Moorhead and the 5 attorneys) + $10,900 (Mr. Elihu) = $194,620; $194,620 x .94 (to reflect 6% reduction) = $182,942.80.]
Based on the foregoing, the recoverable attorney’s fees for the 12 “paralegals” are $44,339.75 (253.37 hrs. x $175/hr)
This makes a total recoverable attorney’s fees of $227,282.55, before the offsets discussed below.
Plaintiff’s recovery of attorney’s fees will be offset by $5,687 which represents the amounts that plaintiff has not yet paid in sanctions imposed against her in connection with the (1) Defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena to Cigna and (2) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Sign Authorization re Cornerstone. (ROA 449)
Plaintiff’s recovery of attorney’s fees will be further offset by $12,108.57 which reflects the sanctions Hotel has previously paid to plaintiff in connection with discovery motions. (See Minute Orders showing the following sanctions against Hotel and in favor of Plaintiff of $3,608.57 (Exh. B to RJN) and $8,500 (Exh F to RJN).)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTs the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees in the total amount of $209,486.98.
The Court DENIES plaintiff’s request for a lodestar multiplier.
Hotel’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents.
Counsel for plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.