Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 20STCV42109, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV42109 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 24
MOVING PARTY: Alfredo Jimenez (Plaintiff)
RESP. PARTY: Alexis Coronado Aguirre
(Defendant)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for
Attorney Fees
The
above-captioned matters are called for hearing.
The Court has
read the moving papers in the above-captioned motions and announces its
tentative ruling in open Court.
The Motion for Attorney Fees reservation no.: 350804276373 filed
by Plaintiff Alfredo Jimenez on 02/10/2023 is GRANTED in part.
The
Motion for Attorneys Fees is Granted in Part. The court grants the motion for
attorneys’ fees
in part for a total fee award of $97,001.76., which includes the fees incurred in
bringing this motion.
Plaintiff Alfredo Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an award
of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $175,730.00 for work completed and
$3,000.00 for attorneys fees in pursuing the present fee motion against
Defendant Alexis Coronado Aguirre (“Defendant”).
By way of background, Plaintiff alleging causes of action
against Defendant for violations of FEHA, declaratory judgment, wrongful
termination, misclassification, and labor code violations. On November 18,
2022, and December 2, 2022, respectively, the court held a bench trial.
Defendant did not appear at trial despite proper notice having been given. The
court found in favor of Plaintiff at trial in the amount of $161,074.72. (Dec.
2, 2022, Minute Order.) The ruling was as
follows:
On the FEHA causes of action, Plaintiff
established discrimination on the basis of disability, retaliation on the
grounds of disability, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and
failure to engage in the interactive process. . . . Further, Plaintiff was an
employee, not an independent contractor. He worked 14-16 hours per day, 6 days
a week and was not paid overtime. He did not receive meal or rest breaks and did
not receive premium pay for the missed breaks. He did not receive wage
statements and did not receive a paycheck for his last week of work. . . The
court does not find the evidence supports the imposition of a penalty for
misclassification and declines to award penalties for the misclassification
cause of action.
(Dec. 2, 2022,
Minute Order, at pp. 1-2.) Upon entry of judgment in his favor, Plaintiff filed
a motion for attorneys’ fees.
In action brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act
(“FEHA”), the court “may award to the prevailing party, including the
department, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness
fees. . .” (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(6).) “Although fees are not reduced
when a plaintiff prevails on only one of several factually related and closely
intertwined claims under state law as well as federal law, a reduced fee award
is appropriate when a claimant achieves only limited success.” (Chavez v. City
of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989 [Internal citations and quotations
omitted].)
“It is well established that the
determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the
discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence
of an abuse of discretion.”¿ (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623
624.) The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily “begins with the
‘lodestar’ [method], i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied
by the reasonable hourly rate.”¿ (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006)
144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)¿ “[A] computation of time spent on a case and the
reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an
appropriate attorneys’ fee award.”¿ (Margolin v. Reg’l Planning Comm’n (1982)
134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.)¿ The court may then adjust the lodestar figure based
on consideration of factors specific to the case, to fix the fee at the fair
market value for the legal services provided.¿ (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20
Cal.3d 25, 49 [discussing factors relevant to proper attorneys’ fees award].)¿
“Factors
to be considered include, but are not limited to, the complexity of the case
and procedural demands, the attorney skill exhibited and the results achieved.
The prevailing party and fee applicant bears ‘the burden of showing that the
fees incurred were ... ‘reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation,’
and were ‘reasonable in amount.’ It follows that if the prevailing party fails
to meet this burden, and the court finds the time expended or amount charged is
not reasonable under the circumstances, then the court must take this into
account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.” (Mikhaeilpoor v.
BMW of North America, LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247
[Internal citations omitted].)
After
the lodestar is determined, the court in its discretion may, but is not
required to, apply a fee enhancement or multiplier.
The court has
carefully considered the papers filed in support of the motion as no opposition
was filed. As to the number of hours worked, Plaintiff submits the
declarations of Ramin Younessi, Eduardo Balderas, Christopher Afgani, Diana
Karapetyan, and Fmio Nakahiro. Based on the declarations the hourly rates for
work done are as follows:
Ramin Younessi (Principal)
- $1,000 - 27.10 hours of work
(Younessi Decl., ¶¶2, 9, 26)
Fumio Nakahiro (associate)
- $950 - 18 hours worked
(Nakahiro Decl., ¶14)
Jason Buccat (supervising attorney) - $850 for unstated hours worked. (Nakahiro Decl., ¶18.)
Eduardo Balderas (associate) -
$400 for unstated hours worked (Balderas Decl., ¶4.)
Christopher Afgani (associate) - $350 for unstated hours worked (Afgani Decl., ¶4.)
Diana Karapetyan (associate)
- $300 - 10 hours of work
(Karapetyan Decl., ¶5.)
Paralegals
- $250 - unstated hours worked
(Nakahiro Decl., ¶¶15-16)
Nakahiro also
attaches the firm’s time sheets (Nakahiro Decl., ¶21, Ex. B.) The court finds
the hourly rates sufficiently justified. However, Plaintiff did not provide the
hours worked by Buccat, Balderas, Afgani and the various paralegals. The court
has attempted to determine the hours worked and found that they performed the
following approximate amounts of work: (i) Buccat-19.4 hours, (ii) Balderas-4.8
hours, (iii) Afgani -1.7 hours, and (iv) the paralegals-52.31. (See Nakahiro
Decl., ¶21, Ex. B.) This means that approximately 30 hours were completed by at
least five other attorneys at various times. Given the large number of
attorneys—and that a fifth of the work was performed for persons not explained
beyond a cursory note in Nakahiro’s declaration—the case appears to have been
overstaffed. (See Nakahiro Decl., ¶17.) The court finds a reduction of 4% to
the lodestar addresses this issue.
With respect to
the hours incurred by the firm, the court has reviewed the tasks and finds that
a further reduction of 4% is warranted. The reduction is made because the
number of hours is unreasonable to a certain extent. Certain hours were not
reasonably required because of excessive internal communication and
disproportionate administrative billing.
Finally, based
on the timesheet submitted, the firm expended 161.60 hours on the matter and
seeks compensation for all of those hours. The timesheet includes time spent on
the attorneys’ fees motion. Plaintiff also seeks an additional $3,000 for the
attorneys’ fees motion on top of the time spent on the motion notwithstanding
its inclusion in the timesheet. The court declines the request for an
additional $3,000.
Thus, the court
finds a total of 8% reduction of the requested $87,865.00 (of $7,029.20) accounts for the issues raised. With the
appropriate reductions, the court arrives at a lodestar of $80,834.80. The
court awards a multiplier of 1.2% appropriate given the contingent nature of
the litigation, the difficult of the issues and the complexity of the case.
In sum, the
court grants the motion for attorneys’ fees in part for a total fee award of
$97,001.76.
Moving party is directed to give notice.