Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00242, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00242 Hearing Date: December 14, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE: December 14, 2023 TRIAL DATE: October 17, 2023
CASE: BENJAMIN MARTIN, an individual, v. SCOTT WARMUTH, a Professional California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00242
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Benjamin Martin
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Scott Warmuth
SERVICE: Filed November 14, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed December 1, 2023
REPLY: Filed December 7, 2023
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees totaling $370,728.50 in this present action and $14,926.00 in incurred costs.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff Benjamin Martin’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that his previous employer, Defendant Scott Warmuth (“Defendant”), failed to provide him with his personnel records after terminating his employment. Plaintiff filed this complaint on April 27, 2022, seeking injunctive relief under Labor Code section 1198.5.
TENTATIVE RULING
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees totaling $370,728.50 in this present action and $14,926.00 in incurred costs.
Labor Code section 1198.5, subdivision (l), provides: “A current or former employee may also bring an action for injunctive relief to obtain compliance with this section, and may recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in such an action.”
As a preliminary note, the court emphasizes that any fee award in the present case is discretionary. First, Labor Code section 1198.5, subdivision (l), utilizes the permissive “may” rather than the mandatory “shall.” Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, subdivision (a), provides: “Costs or any portion of claimed costs shall be as determined by the court in its discretion in a case other than a limited civil case in accordance with Section 1034 where the prevailing party recovers a judgment that could have been rendered in a limited civil case.” Here, Plaintiff recovered $750, and his prayer for injunctive relief was denied. Thus, any award of fees and costs is discretionary. The court now turns to the specifics of Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs.
“[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.)
Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees for 640.1 hours of work on this case at a rate of $685.00 per hour for a total of $370,728.50. (Young Decl. ¶¶ 34 and 44.)
“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; Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1137-38.) Plaintiff’s request for fees is unreasonably inflated. Plaintiff’s case is, at its core, a request for the production of documents in the form of his personnel file. Yet, Plaintiff seeks 22 hours for a motion for summary adjudication, 29 hours for a motion for reconsideration, and over 30 hours on one set of discovery motions. Additionally, Plaintiff routinely bills many hours of work for a single day. Particularly egregious is Plaintiff’s counsel’s claim that he worked 19.6 hours on October 15, 2023, and 22 hours on October 16, 2023. Bookending those long and arduous days, Plaintiff’s counsel claims he worked 9.7 hours on October 14, 2023, and 9.4 hours on October 17, 2023. In sum, Plaintiff seeks 60.7 hours of fees within a 96-hour span. The court can only conclude either that Plaintiff’s counsel spent over 60% of every possible hour between October 14-17 helping his client obtain his personal file or that this fee request is grossly overinflated. The more reasonable explanation is the latter.
Further, Plaintiff’s billable hours are rife with block billing. “Block billing occurs when ‘a block of time [is assigned] to multiple tasks rather than itemizing the time spent on each task.’ (Mountjoy v. Bank of America, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 280.) On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff logged no less than 14 separate activities for a total of 10.2 hours in a single entry. Thus, Plaintiff’s hourly log is deficient.
Plaintiff’s request for $685 per hour is also not a reasonable hourly rate. “The courts repeatedly have stated that the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her courtroom, and this includes the determination of the hourly rate that will be used in the lodestar calculus.” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 440.) Plaintiff’s counsel supports his requested rate by claiming that an unnamed colleague at an unnamed LA based firm charges $705.00 per hour. (Young Decl. ¶ 44.) In opposition, Defendant submits the declaration of two attorneys, Christopher Cho and Jean Powers, who provide that their hourly rates are $245 and $450, respectively. The court sets Plaintiffs reasonable hourly rate in this case at $500.
The last issue is the extent that Plaintiff was successful in litigating his claims. “California law, like federal law, considers the extent of a plaintiff's success a crucial factor in determining the amount of a prevailing party's attorney fees.” (Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 217, 238.) Plaintiff seeks $370,728.50 in attorney fees for a case based on a statute that provides for recovery of $750 and injunctive relief. (Lab. Code section 1198.5, subds. (k) and (l). Further, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was denied. Although Plaintiff was able to obtain more documents that ostensibly are part of his employment file and Defendant conceded it did not initially provide the entirety of Plaintiff’s file, Plaintiff was able to do so through the discovery process, which the court previously noted Plaintiff was entitled to use. Thus, Plaintiff success in this case was effectuated by his ability to take part in the processes of the judicial system by simply filing a complaint. Plaintiff’s success in this case was therefore limited.
Thus, the court’s grants a reduced award of attorney’s fees based on the facts that (1) any award this case is discretionary, (2) Plaintiff submitted an unreasonably inflated request for fees, (3) Plaintiff’s billable hour log is filled with improper billing, (4) Plaintiff requested an unreasonable hourly rate, and (5) Plaintiff achieved limited success in this case. The court finds that a reasonable number of hours is 40 hours at a rate of $500 per hour for a total of $20,000.
Additionally, Plaintiff seeks $14,926.00 in costs. Plaintiff’s request for recovery of costs is deficient. Plaintiff merely includes a log of expenses with no explanation of what statutory basis provides an entitlement to recover the cost or even what the sought costs are actually for. (Young Decl. ¶ 49, Exhibit 12.) California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700, subdivision (a)(1), provides: “A prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.” Plaintiff did submit a timely memorandum of costs. However, in the memorandum, Plaintiff sought only $330.60 in costs. Confusingly, Plaintiff then claimed over $14,000 more in costs with the present motion. Counsel is welcome to clear up this confusion at the hearing. The courts tentative is to grant Plaintiff’s recovery of costs for a total of $330.60 which covers filing fees.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted for a total of $20,330.60 ($20,000 in attorney’s fees plus $330.60 in costs).
Dated: December 14, 2023 ___________________________________
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. alhdeptx@lacourt.org