Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 23STCP00264, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00264    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 86

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Date:               4/9/24 (1:30 PM) 

Case:                           Tiffany Abraham v. City of Los Angeles et al. (23STCP00264) 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Tiffany Abraham’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED IN PART.

As a preliminary matter, respondents City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Los Angeles World Airports’ (“LAWA”) evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

Petitioner Tiffany Abraham seeks an award of attorney fees in the amount of $118,776, based on an asserted lodestar of $84,840 and a 1.4 multiplier. Petitioner also seeks an award of $3,644.52 in costs.

“If the requester prevails in litigation filed pursuant to this chapter, the court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the requester. The costs and fees shall be paid by the public agency and shall not become a personal liability of the public official involved.” (Gov. Code § 7923.115(a).)

On December 19, 2023, the Court granted the instant Petition for Writ of Mandate in part and ordered the production of certain documents. Respondents appear to concede that petitioner at least partially prevailed in this proceeding. (See Opp. at 10:25-27 [“An award of attorney fees is mandatory under the CPRA, as Petitioner argues in its moving papers, so the only issue in this case has been the amount of such an award”].) Accordingly, the Court finds that petitioner prevailed in the instant matter.

The Court also finds that based on counsel for petitioner’s 27 years of experience, an hourly rate of $700.00 is reasonable. (Gutierrez Decl. ¶ 2.)

Respondents argue that the award should be reduced in proportion to petitioner’s degree of success. “[W]hile the degree of the plaintiff's success in obtaining the objectives of the litigation is a factor that the trial court may consider in determining an award of reasonable attorney fees under a fee statute [citations], including the [California Public Records Act (“CPRA”)] fee statute [citation]…there is no requirement that the trial court make an award of attorney fees in an amount that is commensurate with or in proportion to the degree of success in the CPRA litigation.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1398.)

Petitioner prepared papers associated with the following: (1) Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One against City and LAWA (heard 9/12/23); (2) Motions to Compel Attendance of Persons Most Knowledgeable at Deposition and Production of Documents against City and LAWA (heard 9/12/23); and (3) Petition for Writ of Mandate (heard 12/19/23).

While there is no requirement for a reduction based on the degree of success, there is also no prohibition against it in the appropriate case.  Here, the Court finds a reduction is warranted here. Petitioner’s objective was to obtain disclosure of requested documents. The arguments advanced by petitioner during the hearings were not reasonably necessary to the result achieved.

With respect to the motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, petitioner billed 8.9 hours, as reflected in the following billing entries:

• 6/22/2023 Preparation of Separate Statement for ROG Motion (3.1 hours)
• 6/23/2023 Preparation of Motion to Compel Further Responses to SROG (3.1 hours)
• 8/31/2023 Review Opposition of COLA/LAWA to Motion to Compel Responses (0.4 hours)
• 8/31/2023 Review Separate Statement of COLA/LAWA to ROG (0.5 hours)
• 9/7/2023 Preparation of reply to opposition to motion to compel ROG (1.8 hours)

Petitioner sought further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1-8, 11, 12, 16, and 17—a total of 12 interrogatories. With respect to Nos. 1-7, the Court denied the motion, because respondents represented that they were not withholding any documents responsive to the CPRA request and objections were asserted to ensure that they were not waived. (9/12/23 Minute Order at 4.) With respect to Nos. 11 and 12, the Court found that the responses were complete and unambiguous. (9/12/23 Minute Order at 5.) With respect to Nos. 16 and 17, the Court found that petitioners did not sufficiently justify how the identification of individuals and/or entities who have made CPRA requests regarding the subject incident and utility room since October 31, 2022 were relevant to the CPRA claim. (9/12/23 Minute Order at 5.) Ultimately, the Court only granted petitioner’s motion with respect to a single request—No. 8.

The arguments raised by petitioner with respect to the other interrogatories were not sufficiently colorable to merit an award of attorney fees. Accordingly, the Court reduces the number of hours billed for the motion to compel further responses by 11/12, reflecting the number of interrogatories for which petitioner was not successful. The 8.9 hours billed by petitioner is reduced by 11/12 to yield a reduction of 8.16 hours. Based on the hourly rate of $700, petitioner’s lodestar is reduced by $5,712.

With respect to the motions to compel deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable and production of documents, petitioner billed 5.1 hours, as reflected in the following billing entries:

• 6/22/2023 Preparation of Motion to Compel Depositions (3.3 hours)
• 9/1/2023 Review Oppositions to Motion to Compel Depositions (0.5 hours)
• 9/7/2023 Preparation of reply to motion to compel deposition (1.3 hours)

With respect to this motion, the Court granted petitioner’s requests with respect to 15 topics of inquiry but denied the motion with respect to 12 requests for production. Petitioner did not set forth any specific facts demonstrating good cause for the production of the requested documents. (9/12/23 Minute Order at 8.) Petitioner never directly addressed the propriety of the requests for production. (9/12/23 Minute Order at 8.) The argument raised by petitioner with respect to the document requests were not sufficiently colorable to warrant an award of attorney fees. Accordingly, the Court reduces the number of hours billed for the motion to compel deposition and production of documents by 12/27, reflecting the degree to which petitioner was successful (15 topics of inquiry + 12 document requests = 27). The 5.1 hours billed by petitioner is reduced by 12/27 to yield a reduction of 2.27 hours. Based on the hourly rate of $700, petitioner’s lodestar is reduced by $1,589.

In addition, petitioner billed the following with respect to the motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories and the motions to compel deposition and production of documents, for a total of 3.9 hours:

• 9/12/2023 Travel to/from court appearance (2.9 hours)
• 9/12/2022 Court appearance for discovery motions (0.8 hours)
• 9/15/2023 Preparation of Notice of Ruling for discovery motions (0.2 hours)

The 3.9 hours is reduced by 23/39, reflecting the degree of success for both sets of motions (11 interrogatories denied + 12 document requests denied = 23; 12 interrogatories total + 27 topics and document requests = 39), yielding a reduction of 2.3 hours. Based on the hourly rate of $700, petitioner’s lodestar is reduced by $1,610.

With respect to the petition for writ of mandate, petitioner billed 33.1 hours, as reflected by the following billing entries:

• 10/2/2023 Preparation of Motion for Writ (2.2 hours)
• 10/6/2023 Preparation of exhibits for motion (1.5 hours)
• 10/8/2022 Preparation of Motion for Writ (Continued) (3.6 hours)
• 10/8/2023 Preparation of Exhibits for Motion for Writ (2.2 hours)
• 10/13/2023 Preparation of Motion for Writ (Continued) (1.8 hours)
• 10/17/2023 Preparation of Motion for Writ (Continued) (3.1 hours)
• 10/18/2023 Preparation of Motion for Writ (Continued) (2.6 hours)
• 11/20/2023 Review COLA/LAWA's Brief in Opposition (0.9 hours)
• 12/1/2023 Preparation of Reply to Opposition to Motion for Writ (3.1 hours)
• 12/2/2023 Preparation of Evidentiary Objections to Opposition for Motion for Writ (1.1 hours)
• 12/2/2023 Preparation of Reply to Opposition to Motion for Writ (Continued) (1.8 hours)
• 12/4/2023 Preparation of Reply to Opposition to Motion for Writ (Continued) (2.1 hours)
• 12/4/2023 Preparation of exhibits for reply (0.9 hours)
• 12/18/2023 Preparation for hearing (1.1 hours)
• 12/19/2023 Travel to/from court hearing (3.1 hours)
• 12/19/2023 Review Court's Tentative Ruling (0.2 hours)
• 12/19/2023 Court appearance for Motion for Writ (0.9 hours)
• 12/22/2023 Review Court's Ruling (0.4 hours)
• 1/5/2024 Review transcript of Court hearing 12/19/2023 (0.5 hours)

Petitioner’s CPRA request consisted of 31 categories of documents. (Gutierrez Decl. ¶ 14 & Ex. 2.) As correctly argued by respondents, the Court granted the writ petition with respect to Category Nos. 1, 10, and 29-31—a total of 5 categories. (Gutierrez Decl. ¶ 16 & Ex. 4 at 7, 10-11.) The Court partially granted Category Nos. 11, 12, 16, and 17—at total of 4 categories. (Gutierrez Decl. Ex. 4 at 9-10.) With respect to the other categories, the Court ruled that petitioner did not meet her burden to demonstrate that respondents were in possession of the requested documents. With respect to the categories for which the motion was granted in part, the Court will not reduce the fee award, as petitioner obtained some production of documents. However, with respect to the 22 categories for which petitioner was wholly unsuccessful, the Court will reduce the fee award, as petitioner did not present any colorable argument with respect to respondents’ possession of the documents, a basic requirement to obtain writ relief under the CPRA. Even if respondents produced certain documents in response to the CPRA request, petitioner proceeded in seeking writ relief as to all 31 requests on the ground that additional documents exist, a ground which petitioner did not sufficiently support.

The 33.1 hours is reduced by 22/31, yielding a reduction of 23.5 hours. Based on the hourly rate of $700, petitioner’s lodestar is reduced by $16,450.

Respondents do not otherwise object to petitioner’s billing entries. The Court finds that billing entries other than those set forth above were reasonably incurred. The Court notes that petitioner is entitled to the entirety of fees for the preparation of the interrogatories and deposition notice and review of responses, as work done on a potentially meritorious legal theory. (See Greene v. Dillingham Construction, N.A., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 418, 424.)  However, the fees are reduced with respect to the corresponding motions because petitioner did not meet her burden.

Petitioner also seeks a 1.4 multiplier. In deciding whether to apply a multiplier, courts look to, among other factors, the “novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill displayed in presenting them.” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.) This case was not novel or complex. Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate involved a straightforward review of whether the requested records qualify as public records, which respondents did not dispute, and whether such records are in respondents’ possession. (See Anderson-Barker v Superior Court (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 528, 538.) The Court finds that the lodestar awarded as set forth above sufficiently compensates counsel for his efforts. (Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1176.) 

With respect to costs, contrary to counsel for petitioner’s averment (Gutierrez Decl. ¶ 8), no memorandum of costs was filed in the instant action. However, because no judgment has yet been entered, the deadline to file a memorandum of costs has not passed. (See Rule of Court 3.1700(a)(1) [prevailing party must serve and file memorandum of costs within 15 days after service of notice of entry of judgment or 180 days after entry of judgment].) Respondents have not directly opposed the award of costs, which petitioner contends are recoverable. (Id. ¶ 7.) Accordingly, petitioner is awarded costs in the amount of $3,644.52.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. Using the appropriate lodestar approach, and based on the foregoing findings and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the total and reasonable amount of attorney fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the Petition for Writ of Mandate is $63,123.52 ($84,840 asserted lodestar - $5,712 motion re: interrogatories - $1,589 motion re: deposition - $1,610 both sets of discovery motions - $16,450 writ petition + $3,644.52 costs). Such fees and costs are awarded to petitioner Tiffany Abraham and against respondents City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports.