Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC681378, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC681378    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiffs are awarded $1,250,000 in reasonable attorney fees.

On 10/27/2017, Plaintiffs Mitzi Alvarez, Alisha Ciorlieri, Erika Irigoyen, Linda Irigoyen, Johanna Rios, Vanessa Rodriquez, and Yedidia Simental (collectively, Plaintiffs) initiated this action. On 6/20/2018, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC) against Citrus Community College District, Vincent Patino, Eric Magellan in his individual and official capacity, and Robert Sammis in his individual and official capacity, alleging: (1) sexual harassment; (2) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment; (3) equal protection and due process; and (4) supervisorial liability; violation of civil rights.

            Now, Plaintiffs seek reasonable attorney fees totaling $2,153,324.50.

Discussion

            Plaintiffs argue they are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees under FEHA and 42 U.S.C. §1988.

Rates

Plaintiffs submitted the following table of claimed rates:

            After a consideration of the relevant factors, including the duration of the litigation, the difficulty of the litigation, the skill required, and the contingency nature of the case, the Court finds the following rates to be reasonable:

-         Senior/Emeritus Partner: $800 per hour

-         Partners: $650 per hour

-         Senior Associates: $450 per hour

-         Junior Associates: $300 per hour

-         Certified Paralegals and Law Clerks: $185 per hour.

Hours

            Plaintiffs’ counsel claims over 3,200 hours of billable work. After review, the Court finds most of these hours reasonably incurred. However, the Court also finds evidence of some padding or excessive/duplicative billing which supports a reduction in fees.   

 First, in contrast to Plaintiffs’ claim of 3,200 hours of billable work, Defendants’ counsel during the same period of time claim only 920 hours of billable work. While variation in opposing counsels’ hours claimed does not, on its own, indicate unreasonableness, the disparity does tend to indicate padding.    

Second, some of the entries are either vague or claim an excessive number of hours. For example, Ms. Lingel-Gary, a 2L law student, spent a total of at least 184 hours to review attorney notes and a hard drive. Craig Farner claims 58.2 hours, from May 27, 2020 to June 15, 2020 to research hostile work environment claims.) Mr. Boucher billed 6.9 hours for trial preparation, despite that this case resolved in settlement. Ms. Gordillo billed 2 hours for calendaring the trial date and deadlines.

Third, the submitted fee bills contain duplicative entries. For example, Ms. Bednarski spent 16.3 hours preparing for the depositions of Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Magallon. However, Mr. McLane took the deposition of Mr. Wilcox, and billed approximately 5.8 hours on April 8, 2021, 9.5 hours on April 15, 2021, and April 16, 2021, to prepare for the deposition of Mr. Wilcox.

            In sum, the Court finds some of the hours claimed to be  “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” (Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434.)  As a result, and given the Court’s power to make “across-the-board percentage cuts either in the numbers of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure,” the Court finds a final lodestar figure of $1,250,000 to be reasonable. (Gonzalez v. City of Maywood (9th Cir. 2013) 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (Gonzalez).

Lodestar Enhancement

Plaintiffs request a 1.5 lodestar enhancement based on the contingency nature of the case and the quality of the work performed.

Relevant factors to determine whether an enhancement is appropriate 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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

Here, the hourly rates set forth above capture the skill and the contingent nature. Thus, any multiplier would be duplicative of the calculations set forth above. Furthermore, an analysis of the relevant factors do not justify an enhancement award.

            However, the Court also declines to award a negative multiplier “to discourage future litigants from excessive greed” as requested by Defendants.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE
RULING

Defendants’
motion to tax costs is GRANTED as to the $3,964.61 in costs for copies,
fedex/overnight, and postage), but DENIED as to the $4,043.23 in research
costs.

On
10/27/2017, Plaintiffs Mitzi Alvarez, Alisha Ciorlieri, Erika Irigoyen, Linda
Irigoyen, Johanna Rios, Vanessa Rodriquez, and Yedidia Simental (collectively,
Plaintiffs) initiated this action. On 6/20/2018, Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint (SAC) against Citrus Community College District, Vincent
Patino, Eric Magellan in his individual and official capacity, and Robert
Sammis in his individual and official capacity, alleging: (1) sexual
harassment; (2) failure to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment;
(3) equal protection and due process; and (4) supervisorial liability;
violation of civil rights.

            Now,
Defendants seek to tax costs.

Discussion

            Defendants
argue that the following costs should be taxed because they were not reasonably
necessary to the conduct of litigation and are not reasonable in the amount:

-        
Item 16(a) (Copies): $3,183.85

-        
Item 16(a) (Research): $4,043.23

-        
Item 16(a) (Fedex/Overnight): $650.06

-        
Postage 16(a) (Postage): $130.70

In support, Defendants argue that: (1) the depositions
took place over Zoom, and so all documents, including exhibits, were exchanged
electronically; (2) Plaintiffs have not produced evidence to indicate why they
needed to print more than 15,000 documents in light of the fact that exhibits
were exchanged electronically; (3) postage costs are expressly disallowed
except for exhibits, and, again, exhibits were exchanged electronically.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that these costs are
recoverable under both 42 USC section 1989, which allow for costs beyond CCP
section 1033.5(b). See Harris v. Marhoefer (1994) 24 F.3d 16, 19: “[u]nder § 1988, Harris may
recover as part of the award of attorney's fees those out-of-pocket expenses
that “would normally be charged to a fee paying client. Thus reasonable
expenses, though greater than taxable costs, may be proper. Harris’ response
indicated the questioned items were necessary and reasonable in this case.”

While the Court is persuaded by
Plaintiffs’ authority that section 1988 allows for costs beyond section
1033.5(b), that same authority still indicates that the expenses must be
reasonable.

While Plaintiffs have provided case law
showing that the categories of costs can be recoverable, Plaintiffs still have
not offered a persuasive explanation to show that those costs were reasonable here
in light of the fact that depositions were conducted electronically. Put
another way, while the Court agrees that postage, photocopying, and shipping
can be recoverable, Plaintiffs have not established that those costs were
necessary and reasonable in this case. (See Harris, supra, 24
F.3d. 16, 19.)

However, the Court agrees that research
costs can be recoverable here, and were reasonable and necessary to this
litigation. (Trustees
of Const. v. Redland Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 2006) 460 F.3d 1253, 1258–1259) (“we reject
the department's contention that charges incurred by Local 290 for computerized
legal research are not recoverable as attorney fees…[given] growing circuit
consensus that reasonable charges for computerized research may be recovered as
attorney's fees' under federal law” (internal punctuation omitted).)

            Based
on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to tax costs is granted as to the  $3,964.61 in costs for copies,
fedex/overnight, and postage), but denied as to the $4,043.23 in research
costs.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  October   
, 2022

   Hon. Jon R.
Takasugi

   Judge of the
Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must
send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org
by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits
on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must
identify the party submitting on the tentative. 
If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this
tentative as the final order.  If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the
tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed
off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is
strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present
are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied
entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to
argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. 
For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213)
633-0517.  Your understanding during
these difficult times is appreciated.