Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20GDCV00880, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00880    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      August 23, 2022                                 TRIAL DATE:  February 8, 2022

CASE:                         XU WANG AND LUXIE XIE v. AMBER SUN; APEX LAW CENTER; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE

CASE NO.:                 20GDCV00880

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:              Plaintiffs Xu Wang and Luxie Xie

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendants Amber Sun and Apex Law Center

SERVICE:                             Filed July 27, 2022

OPPOSITION:                      Filed August 10, 2022

REPLY:                                  Filed August 16, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiffs move for an award of attorney’s fees totaling $223,724.44 for work done by Rick Ma (“Counsel Ma”).

BACKGROUND

            This case arose out of Plaintiffs Xu Wang and Luxie Xie’s (“Plaintiffs”) that Defendants Amber Sun (“Sun”) and Apex Law Center (collectively “Defendants”) engaged in unlawful immigration consultant practices. This Court found Plaintiffs to be the prevailing party in the present action after a non-jury trial.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED.

            Plaintiffs’ counsel is awarded $109,677.94.   Lodestar amount of 210 hours times $450 reasonable rate for $94,500 plus $5,000 for the present motion and $10,177.94 in costs and expenses.

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE

            Defendants’ objections numbers one through sixteen are overruled.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

LEGAL STANDARD

            Business and Professions Code section 22446.5, subdivision (a), provides: “A person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of this chapter by an immigration consultant may bring a civil action for injunctive relief or damages, or both. If the court finds that the defendant has violated a provision of this chapter, it shall award actual damages, plus an amount equal to treble the amount of actual damages or one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation, whichever is greater. The court shall also grant a prevailing plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.”

DISCUSSION

            Overview

            Plaintiffs seek an award of attorney’s fees totaling $223,724.44. Plaintiffs’ total is based on (1) $139,031.00 in incurred expenses with a requested 1.5 times multiplier, (2) $5,000 for the present motion, and (3) $10,177.94 in costs and expenses.

            “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins 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.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (Ibid.) Once the lodestar figure is calculated, a court may adjust the award based on factors such as “(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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action.” (Ibid.)

            Lodestar Calculation

            Plaintiffs’ counsel provides that he spent 305.8  hours working on this matter. (Ma Decl. ¶ 4.) He states that his firm charges an hourly rate for attorney work at $450 for non-contingency cases. (Id. ¶ 6.) He also provides that his paralegal performed 21.6 hours of work at a rate of $80 per hour. (Id. ¶¶ 4 and 6.) The lodestar total is comprised of two subtotals. First is Plaintiffs’ counsels work at $450 per hour for 305.8 hours for a subtotal of $137,610. Next is counsels’ paralegal’s work at $80 per hour for 21.6 hours for a subtotal of $1,728. The two subtotals combined equal the lodestar total of $139,338.

            The Court finds Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rate of $450 to be reasonable compared with the hourly rates of other lawyers in the community.  Mr. Ma displayed professionalism, competence, and civility[1] in all his interactions with the court.   However, the Court determines that the number of hours spent by Plaintiffs’ counsel exceeds the number of hours reasonably expended on the present case. The Court discusses this issue further in the next section.

            Lodestar Adjustment

            Plaintiffs seek a 1.5 times multiplier to their lodestar figure. In opposition, Defendant asserts, without support, that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not take this case on a contingency basis. In reply, Counsel Ma provides the attorney-fee agreement that provides that Counsel Ma took the case on a contingency basis. (Ma Reply Decl. ¶ 2, Exhibit A.) Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs’ requested fees are unreasonable based on the award granted in this present case. The Court rejects Defendant’s arguments that Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees should be directly linked to the amount recovered.

            However, the Court notes that there are factors weighing against a multiplier. First, the present case did not involve novel or complex issues. Additionally, no expert witnesses were called to testify or deposed, and the only witnesses were the parties themselves. Lastly, no significant and time-consuming motions, such as demurrers or motions for summary judgment, were litigated. The Court finds that the hours billed by Counsel Ma exceed the reasonable number of hours required for a case of this nature. The Court finds that considering all the work provided by plaintiff’s counsel which includes propounding discovery; motion work; numerous court appearances; preparation and successful execution of a bench trial to be 210 hours.

            Additionally, the Court awards Plaintiffs’ counsel his request for $5,000 to litigate the present motion and $10,177.94 in costs and expenses.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees is granted.

Plaintiffs’ counsel is awarded $109,677.94.   Lodestar amount of 210 hours times $450 reasonable rate for $94,500 plus $5,000 for the present motion and $10,177.94 in costs and expenses.

Dated:   August 23, 2022                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org