Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV24571, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 19STCV24571    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Michael Bryant’s unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants Philip Camino, 1071 Glendon Partners, LLC, Camino Industries, LLC, and Terry Tolba is granted in the total amount of $101,745.   

Plaintiff Michael Bryant (“Bryant”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order awarding him attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants Philip Camino (“Camino”), 1071 Glendon Partners, LLC (“1071 Glendon”), Camino Industries, LLC (“Camino Industries”), and Terry Tolba (“Tolba”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the total amount of $101,745.00, jointly and severally, because Plaintiff is the prevailing party based on the stipulated judgment previously entered in this case.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; CRC, Rule 3.1702; Lab. Code §§226(h), 1194; C.C.P. §§998, 1033.5(a)(10).)

Plaintiff’s employment action arises from Defendants’ misclassification of Plaintiff as an exempt employee for years, entitling Plaintiff to overtime wages, duty-free meal periods, and rest breaks.  (Complaint ¶¶18, 25, 26.)  Parties agreed to mediate, and mediation took place in late July 2021, with a settlement agreement signed in September 2021.  Defendants failed to perform under the terms and conditions of the agreement, and a stipulated judgment was entered on October 25, 2021.  (Judgment.)  As such, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action.  (C.C.P. §1032(a)(4).)

On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees. As of the date of this hearing, Defendants have no filed oppositions.

Attorneys’ Fees Motion

When authorized by contract, statute, or law, reasonable attorneys’ fees are “allowable costs.” (C.C.P. §1033.5(a)(10)(A)-(C); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Pacific Custom Pools, Inc. v. Turner Construction Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1268.)

Labor Code §226 provides:

1. An employer, semimonthly or at the time of each payment of wages, shall furnish to his or her employee, either as a detachable part of the check, draft, or voucher paying the employee's wages, or separately if wages are paid by personal check or cash, an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee, except as provided in subdivision (j), (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions, provided that all deductions made on written orders of the employee may be aggregated and shown as one item, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of his or her social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, if the employer is a farm labor contractor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1682, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee and, beginning July 1, 2013, if the employer is a temporary services employer as defined in Section 201.3, the rate of pay and the total hours worked for each temporary services assignment. The deductions made from payment of wages shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement and the record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California. For purposes of this subdivision, “copy” includes a duplicate of the itemized statement provided to an employee or a computer-generated record that accurately shows all of the information required by this subdivision.

   . . .

    

1. An employee may also bring an action for injunctive relief to ensure compliance with this section, and is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

    

(Lab. Code §§226(a), (h).)

Labor Code §1194 provides:

Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

(Lab. Code §1194(a).)

          Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Plaintiff’s wage statements were not in compliance with Labor Code §226(a), since he never received them, and the few times he received wage statements, the statements failed to reflect Plaintiff’s gross wages, total hours worked, net wages earned, or the correct hourly rate.  (Complaint ¶¶65-69.)  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Plaintiff worked overtime for every week prior to the filing of his Complaint.  (Complaint ¶58, Prayer ¶4.)  Having obtained a judgment in his favor, Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Labor Code §226(h) and §1194(a).   

The “lodestar” method requires the Court to consider the number of hours reasonably expended by Defendant’s counsel multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.  (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095.)  The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.  (Id.)  In addition, this Court should also consider: “[t]he nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and the skill employed in handling the litigation, the attention given, the success of the attorney’s efforts, [her] learning, [her] age, and [her] experience in the particular type of work demanded….”  (La Mesa-Spring Valley School District of San Diego County v. Nobuo Otsuka (1962) 57 Cal.2d 309, 316.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated they requested attorneys’ fees are reasonable and proper.  Plaintiff’s counsel, Margaret P. Stevens, declares her hourly rate is $875, and her paralegal, Roselle Bloodsaw’s, hourly rate is $225.  (Decl. of Stevens ¶7.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares she is seeking an hourly rate of $625 for this matter, which is under her currently hourly fee.  (Decl. of Stevens ¶10.)  Plaintiff’s counsel set for the work performed on the instant case.  (Decl. of Stevens ¶¶11-16.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares her law firm spent a total of 144.80 attorney hours and 17.8 paralegal hours, for a total of 162.60 hours on the instant case, and requests an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $101,745, which she believes is fair and reasonable.  (Decl. of Stevens ¶17, Exh. A.)

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $101,745.

Dated:  December _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court