Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: BC714046, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC714046    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 61

Plaintiff Ji Sook Kim’s Motion for Attorney Fees is CONTINUED to provide the court a basis upon which to award fees (invoices).

I.                   MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Parties to litigation must generally bear their own attorney’s fees, unless they otherwise agree. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.) However, “In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney's fees and costs upon the initiation of the action.” (Lab. Code § 218.5, subd. (a).) An employee prevailing in an action to recover overtime is also entitled to reasonable attorney fees. (Lab. Code § 1194, subd. (a).) This was an action primarily to recover owed overtime.

 “It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”  (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623.)  In exercising its discretion, the court should consider a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in handling the matter, the attention given, the success or failure, and the resulting judgment.  (See id.) 

In determining the proper amount of fees to award, courts use the lodestar method.  The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the total number of reasonable hours expended by the reasonable hourly rate.  “Fundamental to its determination . . . [is] a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . in the presentation of the case.”  (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (Serrano III).)  A reasonable hourly rate must reflect the skill and experience of the attorney.  (Id. at p. 49.)  “Prevailing parties are compensated for hours reasonably spent on fee-related issues.  A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.”  (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (Serrano IV).)  The Court in Serrano IV also stated that fees associated with preparing the motion to recover attorneys’ fees are recoverable.  (See id. at p. 624.)

Plaintiff here seeks, $35,200.00 in fees, representing 64 hours of attorney work at $550 per hour. (Motion at p. 4.) Plaintiff supports this motion with the declaration of attorney Daniel M. Park, who testifies that although his usual commercial rate is $400 per hour, he has been awarded fees at a rate exceeding $500 per hour. (Park Decl. ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff has not shown entitlement to the fees sought here. A prevailing party that seeks fees “bear[s] the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320.) “The evidence should allow the court to consider whether the case was overstaffed, how much time the attorneys spent on particular claims, and whether the hours were reasonably expended.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff here presents no evidence concerning the nature of his work on this case, toward what work his hours were directed, or whether they were reasonably incurred.

The motion is therefore continued for counsel to provide a basis by which to award fees.  

Plaintiff to give notice.