Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2019-1043210, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Aida Yusupova’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in part.

Attorney fees are permitted in a civil action when authorized by statute, contract, or law.  (CCP § 1033.5(a)(10); see City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1535.)  Plaintiff, as the prevailing party in this action, is entitled to recover her attorney fees pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §§ 218.5 and 1194(a).

In order for the court to allow attorney fees it must be demonstrated that the fees sought are reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation (CCP 1033.5(c)(2)) and reasonable in amount (CCP 1033.5(c)(3)).  The burden of proof as to the reasonableness and necessity of attorney fees is on the party seeking same.  (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 618.)  The court has broad authority to determine reasonable fees.  (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4^th 1084, 1095.)  Such determination normally is based on the “lodestar” method, which is based on the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate, and is presumably reasonable.  (Id. at 1097.)

The Court has reviewed the entirety of the billing entries submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel and finds that, in terms of the time billed, there is no obvious evidence of attorney “padding,” overbilling, or duplicative billing by Plaintiff’s counsel.  However, although the time billed appears reasonable, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to demonstrate that the hourly rate is reasonable given the nature of the work and scope of the proceeding overall.

The Court finds that an hourly rate of $350 is more appropriate for this matter.  This results in an award of $40,792.50 in attorney’s fees.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion in part, with a reduced award of $40,792.50 to Plaintiff on her attorney’s fees claim.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.