Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 21STCP03084, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCP03084 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: 78
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 78
JIMMY WANG,
Appellant,
vs.
ROBERT MCKIERNAN,
Respondent. Case No.:
21STCP03084
Hearing Date: April 27, 2023
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
RESPONDENT ROBERT MCKIERNAN’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Respondent Robert McKiernan’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $57,510.00.
Respondent Robert McKiernan’s Request for Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $8,672.87.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an appeal of a Labor Commissioner’s Award.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 16, 2021, appellant Robert McKiernan (“McKiernan”) filed the Appeal of Labor Commissioner’s Award.
On January 7, 2022, the parties submitted their Trial Briefs.
On February 7, 2022, the non-jury trial commenced.
On July 13, 2022, the Court entered its Tentative Statement of Decision finding that Appellant Jimmy Wang (“Wang”) could be held personally liable for his company’s wage and hour violations pursuant to Labor Code section 558.1.
On July 26, 2022, the Court adopted its Tentative Statement of Decision as its Final Statement of Decision.
On September 15, 2022, the Court entered its Notice of Entry of Judgment.
On September 26, 2022, McKiernan filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Memorandum of Costs.
On November 1, 2022, Wang filed a Notice of Appeal.
As of April 25, 2023, no Opposition has been filed.
DISCUSSION
I. MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Plaintiffs move for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $57,510.00 pursuant to Labor Code section 98.2(c).
Labor Code section 98.2(c) states that when a party seeking review of a Labor Commissioner’s Award is unsuccessful, “the court shall determine the costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the other parties to the appeal, and assess that amount as a cost upon the party filing the appeal. An employee is successful if the court awards an amount greater than zero.”
Here, McKiernan was awarded $41,013.47; accordingly, McKiernan is the prevailing party under section 98.2(c) and is due his costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
A. Reasonableness of Attorneys’ Fees
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. 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. 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. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id. at 48, n.23.) After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is a reasonable figure. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-96.)
The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount of money involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 770, 774 (emphasis in original).) A negative modifier was appropriate when duplicative work had been performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)
1. Initial Lodestar
McKiernan’s Counsel, Jibit Cinar (“Cinar”), requests an initial lodestar of $57,510.00. (Cinar Decl. ¶ 7.) This amount is comprised of 125.8 hours of attorney time, billed at $450.00 an hour. (Ibid.)
Cinar attests that $450.00 an hour is a reasonable billing rate for someone of her credentials and experience. (Cinar Decl. ¶ 8.) Cinar graduated from Loyola Marymount University Law School in 2003 and was admitted to the California State Bar that same year. (Ibid.) Cinar was a partner at Gokal Law Group, Inc. until May 2022, when she founded Cepinian-Cinar Law, Inc. (Ibid.) Cinar has been recognized by Super Lawyer and Los Angeles Magazine. (Ibid.)
The Court finds that $450.00 an hour is a reasonable rate for an attorney with Cinar’s expertise and experience.
Cinar attests that she worked 125.8 hours on the present matter. (Cinar Decl. ¶ 7.) Upon review of Cinar’s verified time statements, the Court finds that the proposed hours reasonably compensate Cinar for the work performed.
Accordingly, McKiernan’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $57,510.00.
B. Allowable Costs
Next, McKiernan requests litigation costs in the amount of $8,672.87. McKiernan submits with his motion a completed memorandum of costs. (Cinar Decl.; Exh. C.)
Under CCP § 1033.5(c)(2), allowable costs “shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” Subdivision (3) states: “Allowable costs shall be reasonable in amount.”
Where a cost item does not appear proper and necessary on its face, the burden of proof is on the claimant to show the cost is appropriate. (Murphy v. F.D. Cornell Co., (1930) 110 Cal. App. 452, 454.) If the items appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761.) Where items are properly objected to as not reasonable or necessary, however, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.) The trial court’s determination on a motion to tax or strike costs will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. (Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 102, 121.)
Upon review of McKiernan’s Memorandum of Costs, the costs appear proper under Code of Civil Procedure section CCP section 1033.5 and appear reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation.
As no Opposition has been filed, the Court finds that the requested costs are proper.
Accordingly, McKiernan’s Request for Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $8,672.87.
CONCLUSION
Respondent Robert McKiernan’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $57,510.00.
Respondent Robert McKiernan’s Request for Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $8,672.87.
DATED: April 27, 2023
___________________________
Hon. Jill T. Feeney
Judge of the Superior Court
