Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 20STCV35400, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV35400 Hearing Date: August 1, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Jessica Carter, Rachel Idolor, and Natalie Nunez.
Plaintiffs Jessica Carter, Rachel Idolor, and Natalie Nunez
(the “Plaintiffs”) sued Defendant Adobe Communities (“Adobe”) on the grounds that,
when the Plaintiffs submitted rental housing applications, Adobe charged the Plaintiffs
a fee for a background check, which included the commission of “investigate consumer
reports” regarding the Plaintiffs.
On May 12, 2022, Adobe accepted Offers to Compromise
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998, awarding each Plaintiff
$10,500 and deeming Plaintiffs the prevailing parties. Plaintiffs now request
Attorney’s Fees and Costs: they seek $61,321 attorneys’ fees (plus an enhancement)
and $902.58 in costs.
After reviewing of the papers and submitted evidence, the
Court GRANTS Attorney’s Fees and Costs, for a total recovery of $30,865.08, i.e.,
$29,962.50 in reasonable attorney’s fees, no multiplier enhancement, and
$902.58 in costs and expenses.
Plaintiffs’ Evidentiary Objections
Objection Nos. 1-9: OVERRULED.
Legal Standard: No specific findings reflecting the court’s
calculations for attorney’s fees are required; the record need only show that the
attorney’s fees were awarded according to the “lodestar” or “touchstone” approach.¿
(Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1344, 1349.) The Court
has broad discretion to determine the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award,
which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial
error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.”¿ (Bernardi
v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393-94.) A prevailing party
is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd.
(a)(4), (b).) Attorney’s fees are recoverable as costs when authorized by contract,
statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10); see also Code Civ. Proc.,
§§ 1717 [attorney’s fees authorized where provided for in contract between parties],
1786.50, subd. (a)(2) [party that suffered damages under ICRAA entitled to
reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court].)
Analysis: Plaintiffs seek (1) $45,825 as reasonable
attorney’s fees, (2) a $15,496 multiplier enhancement award for total of
$61,321, and (3) costs and expenses of $902.58. (Mot., 7:5-11, 13:4-9,
14:15-19.) Adobe argues that reasonable
attorney’s fees should be limited to $25,330, that any multiplier should be
denied. Adobe does not contest the costs
and expenses. (Opp’n, 9:20-27.)
The Court begins this inquiry “with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the
number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”¿
(PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) From there, the “lodestar figure may then be adjusted
[according to a multiplier enhancement] based on consideration of factors specific
to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services
provided.”¿ (Ibid.)¿ Relevant multiplier factors include “(1) the novelty
and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting
them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment
by the attorneys, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.”¿ (Ketchum
v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)
Plaintiffs argue that an attorney fee rate of $650 per hour
is reasonable (Mot., 6:3-7:4) and support this by providing the Declaration of
Glenn Murphy of Litigation Advocacy Group (“Plaintiffs’ Counsel” and “LAP”),
which explains that: Murphy is the founder of LAP; Murphy has been practicing
law for 14 years with a focus on civil rights, mass torts, and complex civil
litigation; and that a billing rate of $650 per hour is commensurate to an
attorney of his experience (supported by the 2014 National Law Journal Billing
Survey, attached as Exhibit 7). Adobe argues that a fee rate of $425 per hour
is more reasonable based on a judicial determination as to reasonable fees in an
allegedly identical ICRAA Case. (Opp’n, 5:10-15.)
The Court agrees that a fee rate of $425 per hour is
reasonable based the nature of this litigation and on Murphy’s years of
practice.
The Plaintiffs also argue that Plaintiffs’ Counsel
reasonably spent 70.5 hours litigating this matter (Mot., 5:12-18; Mot., Murphy
Decl., ¶¶ 15, 16, 22), and supports these hours by providing verified time
records (Mot., Murphy Decl., Ex. 8 [verified time records]). (See Horsford
v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 397
[“trial court abused its discretion in rejecting wholesale counsels’ verified
time records” where “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”].) Adobe’s
Opposition fails to dispute the hours other than to state in passing that
“[t]he Court …, if it so chooses, [may] reduce the hours based on unnecessary
work or include a negative multiplier to penalize counsel for unnecessarily
prolonging a simple case.” (See Opp’n, 9:24-27.) The Court finds no reason to doubt Plaintiffs’
Counsel’s verified time records and finds that all 70.5 hours requested in the
Motion for Attorney’s Fees are reasonable.
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to $29,962.50 in
reasonable attorney’s fees, i.e., reasonable attorney fee of $425 per hour
times 70.5 hours reasonable spent by Plaintiffs’ Counsel on this action.
However, the Court fails to find sufficient grounds to award
any multiplier enhancement award in this case.
The Plaintiffs last request $902.58 in recoverable costs
(Mot., 14:15-19), including $495 in filing and motion fees, $150 in jury fees,
$95 in service of process fess, and $162.58 in fees for electronic filing or
service (Mot., Murphy Decl., Ex. 9 [memo of costs]), which the Opposition does
not contest (see Opp’n, 4:3-9:27). Upon review of the requested costs, the
Court awards to Plaintiffs their requested $902.58.
The Court thus GRANTS, in Part, this Motion in the total
amount of $30,865.08, comprised of $902.58 in costs and $29,962.50 in
reasonable attorney’s fees ($425 per hour, 70.5 hours).
Plaintiffs Jessica Carter, Rachel Idolor, and Natalie Nunez’s
Motion for reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED, in the amount of
$30,865.08, $29,962.50 in reasonable attorney’s fees and $902.58 in costs and
expenses.