Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV24390, Date: 2025-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24390    Hearing Date: January 27, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Gina Johnson (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University (“Defendant”) on October 6, 2023.  Plaintiff asserted causes of action for (1) Race Discrimination; (2) Gender Discrimination; and (3) Violation of California’s Equal Pay Act.

            Plaintiff accepted a offer to compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 998 whereby Defendant agreed to pay reasonable costs of litigation, including statutory attorney’s fees as approved by this court.

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 $155,180.00 and costs in the amount of $644.65.  

            A. Entitlement to Attorney Fees

As stated previously, Plaintiff accepted a offer to compromise under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 998.  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 Michael Curls for this action.  A total of two attorneys  worked on this action.  The hourly rates claimed on this case are: (1) Michael Curls, Esq. $700.00/hr.; and (2) Nichelle Jordan, Esq. $625.00/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.) 

Defendant does not dispute Plaintiff’s hourly rate.

The Court finds that the reasonable hourly rate in this case are: (1) Michael Curls, Esq. $700.00/hr.; and (2) Nichelle Jordan, Esq. $625.00/hr.

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

The hours claimed by the law firm of Michael Curls on this case are: (1) Michael Curls, Esq. 28.7 hours; and (2) Nichelle Jordan, Esq. 92 hours.

            Defendant claims that some of the hours are pre-litigation and after September 25, 2024 in violation of the 998 offer. 

The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent on this case are: 1) Michael Curls, Esq. 12 hours; and (2) Nichelle Jordan, Esq. 90 hours.

In making this determination, the court found that some of the billing was excessive, especially for attorneys as experienced as Plaintiff’s counsel. Also, some billing was in violation of the 998 offer.  Finally, the court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel prelitigation services were appropriate. 

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 $64,650.00 in attorney fees and $644.65 in costs.