Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV22351, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22351    Hearing Date: August 15, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Aaron Koonce (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendants World Oil Corp. (“World”) and Asbury Environmental Services (“Asbury”) on June 12, 2020.  Plaintiff asserted causes of action for (1) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (2) Failure to Accommodate a Disability; and (3) Disability Discrimination.

After a jury trial, the jury found in favor of plaintiff.  The jury awarded plaintiff $2,934,714.00 in compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages. ($1,500,000 in punitive damages against World and $1,500,000 in punitive damages Asbury.)    

LEGAL STANDARD

Under California law, attorney fees are recoverable from the opposing party only as specifically provided by statute or contract. (See, California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1021.)  Because plaintiff proved a violation of FEHA, she is entitled to seek an award of reasonable attorney fees.   (See, California Labor Code, Section 12965(b).) Although the statute states that the court “may” award fees, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to fees “absent circumstances that would render the award unjust.” (Stephens v. Coldwell Banker (1988) 199 CA3d 1394, 1406; Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 CA4th 359, 394.)

“The verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.”  (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.)  If the motion is supported by evidence, the opposing party must respond with specific evidence showing that the fees are unreasonable.  (Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 560-63.)  The Court has discretion to reduce fees that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.  (Horsford, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at 395.) 

The most widely accepted approach for determining a “reasonable” fee award is the “lodestar” method.  The lodestar figure is calculated using the reasonable rate, multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent on the case. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 C4th 1122, 1131-1132.)

ANALYSIS

            Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $2,513,529.38.  

            A. Entitlement to Attorney Fees

As stated previously, the jury awarded plaintiff $2,934,714.00 in compensatory damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages. As such, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action, and as prevailing party in this action, Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable amount of attorney fees. The issue to be addressed is the reasonableness of the requested amount of attorney fees, costs, and expenses.

B. Reasonableness of Fees

1. Reasonable Hourly Rates

Plaintiff retained two law firms, Shegerian & Associates and the Law Offices of Eric A.  Boyajian for this action.  A total of nine attorneys worked on this action with six attorneys from Shegerian & Associates and three attorneys from the Law Offices of Eric A.  Boyajian.

The hourly rates claimed by Shegerian & Associates attorneys who worked on this case are: (1) Carney Shegerian, Esq. $1425.00/hr; (2) Anthony Nguyen, Esq. $1010.00/hr; (3) Mark Lim, Esq. $825.00/hr; (4) Mahru Madjidi, Esq. $900.00/hr; (5) John David, Esq. $625.00/hr.; and (6) Negin Taleb, Esq. $450.00/hr.

The hourly rates claimed by the Law Offices of Eric A.  Boyajian  attorneys who worked on this case are: (1) Eric Boyajian, Esq. $900.00/hr; (2) Amaras Zargarian, Esq. $800.00/hr.; (3) Sofia Tamazyan $600.00/hr.

“In determining hourly rates, the court must look to the ‘prevailing market rates in the relevant community.’”  (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 100.)  In making this determination, “[t]he court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market.”  (Ibid.) 

The Court finds that the reasonable hourly rate in this case for Shegerian & Associates attorneys who worked on this case are: (1) Carney Shegerian, Esq. $1100.00/hr; (2) Anthony Nguyen, Esq. $750.00/hr; (3) Mark Lim, Esq. $750.00/hr; (4) Mahru Madjidi, Esq. $600.00/hr; (5) John David, Esq. $500.00/hr.; and (6) Negin Taleb, Esq. $300.00/hr.

The Court finds that the reasonable hourly rates claimed by the Law Offices of Eric A.  Boyajian attorneys who worked on this case are: (1) Eric Boyajian, Esq. $700.00/hr; (2) Amaras Zargarian, Esq. $500.00/hr.; (3) Sofia Tamazyan $500.00/hr.

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

The hours claimed by Shegarian & Associates who worked on this case are: (1) Carney Shegerian, Esq. 253.6 hours; (2) Anthony Nguyen, Esq. 6.8 hours; (3) Mark Lim, Esq. 455.1 hours; (4) Mahru Madjidi, Esq.5.3 hours; (5) John David, Esq. 318.8 hours; and (6) Negin Taleb, Esq. 4.7 hours. 

The hours claimed by the Law Offices of Eric A.  Boyajian attorneys who worked on this case are: (1) Eric Boyajian, Esq. 268.8 hours; (2) Amaras Zargarian, Esq. 99.3 hours; (3) Sofia Tamazyan 278.2 hours.

            Defendant claims that the number of hours billed is unreasonable. 

The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent by Shegarian & Associates who worked on this case are: (1) Carney Shegerian, Esq. 253.6 hours; (2) Anthony Nguyen, Esq. 6.8 hours; (3) Mark Lim, Esq. 455.1 hours; (4) Mahru Madjidi, Esq. 5.3 hours; (5) John David, Esq. 318.8 hours; and (6) Negin Taleb, Esq. 4.7 hours. 

The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent by the Law Offices of Eric A.  Boyajian attorneys who worked on this case are: (1) Eric Boyajian, Esq. 190 hours; (2) Amaras Zargarian, Esq. 90 hours; (3) Sofia Tamazyan 250 hours.

In making this determination, the court found that plaintiff’s counsel inappropriately billed for some clerical tasks and that some of the billing was excessive, especially for attorneys as experienced as plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff had nine attorneys and two law firms working on this case.  While plaintiff has the right to have multiple attorneys, the court finds that some of the attorneys’ work were duplicative and redundant. 

C. Multiplier

Plaintiff requests a lodestar multiplier enhancement. 

 The Court finds that an upward adjustment to the lodestar is not warranted in this action. While this matter was heavily litigated, it was a straightforward FEHA action.  There is no evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel was precluded from taking other cases.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED.  The Court awards $1,047,465 in attorney fees ($789,375 to Shegarian & Associates and $258,090 to the Law Offices of Eric A.  Boyajian).