Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV02197, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02197    Hearing Date: January 13, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Lee Newson (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) on February 1, 2023.  Plaintiff asserted causes of action for (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Work Environment Harassment; (3) Retaliation; and (4) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation. 

After a jury trial, the jury found in favor of plaintiff.  The jury awarded plaintiff $1,500,000.00 in  damages.

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.)

OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff’s objections to the opinion of Karelis are OVERRULED.

ANALYSIS

            Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $2,888,850.00.   

            A. Entitlement to Attorney Fees

As stated previously, the jury awarded plaintiff $1,500,000.00 in  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 the law firm of L & B Law Group for this action.  A total of five  attorneys and/or paralegals worked on this action from L & B Law Group.  The hourly rates claimed by L & B Law Group attorneys and/or paralegals who worked on this case are: (1) Yuk Law, Esq. $950.00/hr.; (2) Kent Brandmeyer, Esq. $950.00/hr.; (3) Kevin Miller, Esq. $650.00/hr.; (4) Lyla Stone, Esq. $450.00/hr.; (5) paralegal Amber Carlton $225.00/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 L & B Law Group attorneys and paralegals who worked on this case are: (1) Yuk Law, Esq. $700.00/hr.; (2) Kent Brandmeyer, Esq. $700/hr.; (3) Kevin Miller, Esq. $525.00/hr.; (4) Lyla Stone, Esq. $450.00/hr.; (5) paralegal Amber Carlton $250.00/hr.

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

The hours claimed by L & B Law Group attorneys and paralegals who worked on this case are: (1) Yuk Law, Esq. 393 hours; (2) Kent Brandmeyer, Esq. 504.0 hours; (3) Kevin Miller, Esq. 766.80 hours; (4) Lyla Stone, Esq. 193 hours; (5) paralegal Amber Carlton 27.10 hours.

            Defendant claims that the number of hours billed is unreasonable. 

The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent by L & B Law Group attorneys and paralegals who worked on this case are: (1) Yuk Law, Esq. 390 hours; (2) Kent Brandmeyer, Esq. 490 hours; (3) Kevin Miller, Esq. 700 hours; (4) Lyla Stone, Esq. 190 hours; (5) paralegal Amber Carlton 25 hours.

In making this determination, the court found that some of the billing was excessive, especially for attorneys as experienced as plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff had five attorneys and paralegals 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.

D.  Expert Fees and Costs.

Plaintiff claims expert fees and costs in the amount of $236,103.56.  Defendant does not oppose this request.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED.  The Court awards $1,075,250.00 in attorney fees and $236,103.56 in expert fees and costs.