Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV17462, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: October 31, 2022

Case Name: Smith, et al. v. Related Management Company, L.P., et al.

Case No.: 20STCV10686

Matter: Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Ronnie Smith, Eloise Darrough, Sandra Udebu, Pinkey Ford, 

Marie Miller, and Melvin Patton

Responding Party: Defendant Related Management Company, L.P.

Notice: OK

$65,461.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an action relating to violations of the ICRAA.  On July 26, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Ronnie Smith, Eloise Darrough, Sandra Udebu, Pinkey Ford, Marie Miller and Melvin Patton and against Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. in the amount of $10,000 plus interest for each Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs Ronnie Smith, Eloise Darrough, Sandra Udebu, Pinkey Ford, Marie Miller and Melvin Patton now move for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code § 1786.50(a)(2).  Plaintiffs seek “$164,564.00. This figure is based on the lodestar value of (1) Plaintiffs’ attorney fees incurred through the conclusion of the trial in this case on May 27, 2022, in the amount of $104,909.00, plus (2) a requested multiplier of 1.4 in the amount of $41,963.00, plus (3) Plaintiffs’ post-trial attorney fees in the amount of $17,692.00, to compensate Plaintiffs’ counsel for the risk of non-payment, the inevitable delay in receiving payment, the excellent results achieved, and to encourage attorneys to undertake litigation of similar importance in the future.”

Defendant Related Management Company, L.P. opposes the Motion, arguing that (1) Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties because they did not achieve their main objective to obtain punitive damages and emotional distress damages; (2) Plaintiffs should not be able to obtain post-998 offer fees; and (3) the fees requested are excessive given that, among other things, this was a straightforward matter, Plaintiffs’ recovery was limited, and counsel over litigated.  

The Court finds that Plaintiffs are prevailing parties entitled to fees under Civil Code § 1786.50(a)(2) because they obtained a net recovery against Defendant.  

Further, in its October 13, 2022, ruling, the Court already rejected Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs failed to obtain a more favorable outcome relative to Defendant’s 998 offer. 

Next, the Court will not award any multiplier because this was not a novel or complex matter.

As to the lodestar figure, Plaintiffs provide that “counsel Glenn A. Murphy has and will expended a total of 180.9 hours on this case, and his paralegal has expended 30.4 hours” and that “Mr. Murphy’s hourly rate in this case . . . is . . . $650 and his paralegal’s hourly rate is $165.”

The Court reduces counsel’s hourly rate to $550.  Further, counsel’s total number of hours is not reasonable for this straight-forward case.  The Court has reviewed the billing records and will deduct 71 hours for excessive time spent on, inter alia, communications, discovery, and drafting briefs.  

The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is granted in part.  The Court awards $65,461.  The objections are overruled.  The Requests for Judicial Notice are granted.  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.