Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: BC658964, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC658964    Hearing Date: July 9, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Ana Villasenor moves for attorney’s fees and expert witness fees against Defendants SR Long Beach FD, Inc. and SR Restaurant Holdings Group, Inc pursuant to Government Code, section 12965, subd. (c)(6). Plaintiff seeks $1,899,345.00 in attorney’s fees and $13,782.50 in expert witness fees.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees in the amount of $949,672.50.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for expert witness fees in the amount of $13,782.50.

Background

Plaintiff filed this action on April 24, 2017, raising a number of claims under FEHA.

On January 12, 2024, following a jury trial, Plaintiff obtained judgment in her favor for sexual harassment, gender discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Plaintiff obtained a total judgment of $445,064.17.

Plaintiff filed this motion on June 10, 2024. No party filed an opposition.

Legal Standard

The lodestar method for calculating attorney fees applies to any statutory attorney fees award, unless the statute authorizing the award provides for another method of calculation. (Glaviano v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 744, 750-751.) “Under the lodestar method, the trial court must first determine the lodestar figure—the reasonable hours spent multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate—based on a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of the case.” (Id. at p. 751.) 

The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  

The moving party bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(5).) The party seeking fees has the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784.) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) A plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.)

“In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488, quoting Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) When items are properly objected to, the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)

Discussion

Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees

“In civil actions brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees, except that, notwithstanding Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prevailing defendant shall not be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds the action was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.” (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(6).)

Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this FEHA action. The Court therefore awards attorney’s fees.

Amount of Attorney’s Fees

Lodestar

Plaintiff requests the following hourly rates and time expenditures:

For Julia Z. Wells, admitted 2017, $725.00 per hour for 506.0 hours;

For Dalia Khalili, admitted 2007, $975.00 per hour for 52.6 hours;

For Vanessa M. Rodriguez, admitted 2011, $725.00 per hour for 183.6 hours;

For Debra J. Tauger, admitted 1989, $1,050.00 per hour for 117.4 hours;

For Andrew Sokolowski, admitted 2003, $900.00 per hour for 128.2 hours;

For Tagore Subramaniam, admitted 2011, $775.00 per hour for 83.1 hours;

For Sydney Adams, admitted 2018, $625.00 per hour for 21 hours; and

For legal assistants, $250.00 per hour for 329 hours.

            As an initial matter, the Court finds these hourly rates to be reasonable.

            The number of hours, while high, appear justified under the circumstances of this case. This case was filed in 2017 and came to trial in January 2024, over six years later. Defendants vigorously litigated this case and denied liability up to trial. The parties engaged actively in discovery, with Plaintiff taking four depositions in addition to substantial written discovery. Defendants filed a comprehensive motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication as to each of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff opposed the summary judgment and prevailed on all but one of thirteen claims.

            Further, Plaintiff’s lawyers faced substantial risks at trial that would understandably require additional attorney work to mitigate. Plaintiff did not have eyewitnesses corroborating her harasser’s physical assaults on her, heightening the risk of loss if the jury did not find Plaintiff’s testimony to be credible. Further, because Plaintiff does not speak English as a primary language and required an interpreter, there were concerns that the jurors may not be able to fairly evaluate her testimony. Additionally, as outlined in Plaintiff’s brief, there were significant concerns that jurors could react poorly or apathetically to the particular facts of Plaintiff’s case.

            In spite of these strategic difficulties, Plaintiff’s attorneys were able to obtain a favorable result in this case.

For these reasons, the Court finds the time expenditures to be reasonable.

Plaintiff’s lodestar is $949,672.50.

Lodestar Multiplier

Plaintiff requests a lodestar multiplier of 2.0. The Court does not agree that  a multiplier is appropriate. 

It is true that the sheer length of this litigation necessarily created unavoidable risk – Defendants never offered more than $30,000.00 in settlement discussions – that could not be absorbed with additional hours, and in fact is to some extent the cause of the high time expenditures. Because this is a contingent fee case, Plaintiff’s attorney’s expended considerable time at the risk of not being paid at all.

However, while Plaintiff faced vigorous litigation from Defendants and substantial risk at a jury trial, much of that risk can be seen to be accounted for in Plaintiff’s high time expenditures and moderately heavy staffing of the trial team, which consisted of four attorneys. That Plaintiff’s counsels obtained the result they did is significant. The numbers and hours required to do so make it less so, however, and necessarily dampen both the risk and skill required by any one attorney.

Under the facts of this case, the Court does not find a lodestar multiplier to be necessary or appropriate.

Expert Witness Fees

            Plaintiff incurred $13,782.50 in expert witness fees for experts who were key to establishing her emotional distress damages. (Wells Decl. ¶ 11.) The Court finds this amount to be reasonable.