Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCP01196, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01196    Hearing Date: August 7, 2024    Dept: 82

Andres Perez v. Kim Johnson, et al.

Case No. 22STCP01196

[Tentative] Order Granting Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Andres Perez (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for writ of mandate directing the California Department of Social Services and Kim Johnson, in her official capacity as Director, to set aside an administrative decision denying Petitioner’s claim for retroactive benefits.  The court (Beckloff, J.) granted the petition, finding that Petitioner was entitled to benefits for the time period of May 17, 2017, to March 2, 2020.  (See Court’s Order, dated August 25, 2023.)  Now, Petitioner’s counsel seeks $158,825.20 in attorneys’ fees under Welfare and Institutions Code section 10962.  Respondents’ counsel does not challenge Petitioner’s right to attorneys’ fees but argues that they should receive only $90,000. 

LEGAL STANDARD

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 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.  (See Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.)

DISCUSSION

Petitioner’s counsel requests that the court award hourly rates for his attorneys as follows: (1) William Hanssen (licensed since 1983): $805/hour in 2021 and $870/hour in 2022; (2) David A. Belcher (licensed since 2019): $520/hour in 2022, $ 615/hour in 2023, and $695/hour in 2024; (3) Lara Holtzman (licensed since 1993): $878/hour; and (4) Natalie Klasky Mac (licensed since 2014): $500/hour.  (Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (“Mot.”) 7-8.)  Most of these rates are high for writ proceedings (as opposed to other forms of civil litigation). 

Petitioner’s counsel requests that the court authorize 249.6 hours for the petition, including the instant motion.  These hours are higher than what the court would expect for a petition of this nature.  Among other things, the court is concerned that the number of attorneys resulted in inefficiencies.   

Based upon the foregoing, the court applies a 20 percent negative multiplier, resulting in an award of attorneys’ fees of $127,060.16.  This is commensurate with what the court would expect for a petition of this nature.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         Because Respondent does not contest Petitioner’s right to attorneys’ fees, the motion is granted.

            2.         The court reduces the requested attorneys’ fees from $158,825.20 to $127,060.16.

            3.         Respondents shall pay this amount within ninety (90) days.

            4.         Petitioner may lodge a proposed order for the court’s signature if necessary.

            5.         Petitioner’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.