Johana Castro v. 24K Chef LLC, et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Johana Castro

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Unopposed

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Johana Castro brought this action against her former employer(s), Defendant 24K Chef LLC and Defendant Nelly Bunay, for various violations of the Labor Code and FEHA.

The matter proceeded to trial on August 25, 2023. Defendant Nelly Bunay did not appear. The trial proceeded as uncontested as to defendant Nelly Bunay and prove-up as to defaulted defendant 24K Chef LLC. The court entered Judgment for Plaintiff and against both defendants, 24K Chef LLC and Nelly Bunay, jointly and severally for the total amount of $38,469.00.

Plaintiff now moves to recover her attorney’s fees and costs. No opposition was filed.  [FN 1]

  

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART in the total amount of $33,600.00.

Plaintiff is awarded full costs in the amount of $722.50.

Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION: 

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

A. Analysis

This matter proceeded to trial on August 25, 2023. Defendant Nelly Bunay did not appear. The trial proceeded as uncontested as to defendant Nelly Bunay and prove-up as to defaulted defendant 24K Chef LLC. The court then entered Judgment for Plaintiff and against both defendants, 24K Chef LLC and Nelly Bunay, jointly and severally for the total amount of $38,469.00. (See 08/25/23 Minute Order.) Judgment was entered on August 30, 2023. 

Plaintiff now moves to recover her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party in this action under the Labor Code and FEHA. Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $40,800 with a 1.2 multiplier for $48,960. No Defendant has filed an opposition.

The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134.)  “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’”  “[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (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….”  (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)  In setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “‘fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.’”  (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664.)  The burden is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove reasonableness of the fees.  (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615.)

 

The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee award which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1393-94.  The Court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.)

1. Reasonable Hourly Rate

Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan Roven, seeks an hourly rate of $850 for his work on this case, which Plaintiff states was “a straightforward employment law matter.” (Mtn. 2: 3.)

This court finds that the quoted rate of $850.00 exceeds the reasonable rate in the community. Plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence that this is the prevailing rate in Los Angeles for employment cases of this type. Plaintiff likewise fails to present evidence of a Los Angeles court awarding a similarly high rate.

Thus, under the totality of the circumstances and based upon general prevailing rates in the Los Angeles area for this type of litigation, this court finds the reasonable rate to be $700.00 per hour. This determination considers the complexity of the case, the quality of services provided, and the attorney’s experience.

2. Number of Hours Reasonably Expended

Plaintiff’s counsel states he expended 48 hours for the prosecution of this matter. (Rovel Decl. ¶ 21.) 

"[I]t is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged [within the moving party’s verified billing invoice], with a sufficient argument and citations to 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.)  

No defendant has challenged the number of hours expended. Based on a matter that proceeded through trial, albeit uncontested, the court finds the hours expended in this matter were reasonable. 

Thus, in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total amount of reasonable attorney’s fees in this case is $33,600.00.   This was calculated by using a lodestar methodology, to wit, multiplying the reasonable hourly rate of $700.00 by 48 hours.

The Court in its discretion declines to apply a multiplier given the matter did not present any complex or novel issues and proceeded as uncontested at trial.  

3. Costs and Expenses

Per her August 28, 2023, Memorandum of Costs, Plaintiff seeks $722.50 in costs. 

“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” (CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1).) 

Plaintiff served her cost memorandum by mail and email on August 28, 2023. The time for Defendants to move to strike has passed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded full costs in the amount of $722.50. (See Douglas v. Willis (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 287, 289 [“failure to file a motion to tax costs constitutes a waiver of the right to object.”].)

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 12, 2023 ___________________________________

                                                        Randolph M. Hammock

                                                        Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 - Plaintiff properly served the motion and moving papers on Defendants by mail and email on September 6, 2023. (See Proof of Service.)

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.