Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 22STCV04795, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV04795, Date: 2025-03-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 22STCV04795 Hearing Date: March 6, 2025 Dept: 29

Brick v. Harney
22STCV04795
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On February 8, 2022, Plaintiff Kelly Jo Brick (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Michael J. Harney (“Harney”) and Does 1 through 50.

On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Harney, Go The Distance Productions (“GTDP”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 50. In the FAC, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and violation of Labor Code section 3700.

On April 5, 2022, Defendants filed an answer to the FAC.

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss Defendant Harney (who had filed for bankruptcy).

On January 16, 2024, the Court, based on the stipulation of Plaintiff and GTDP, struck the answer of GTDP.

On February 2, 2024, the default of GTDP was entered.

On January 22, 2025, the Court entered a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against GTDP in the amount of $530,575.36.

On February 4, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion for attorney fees. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, a prevailing party is generally entitled as a matter of right to recover costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).) The term “prevailing party” is defined to include “the party with a net monetary recovery.” (Id., subd. (a)(4).) Costs may include attorney’s fees when authorized by contract or statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)

“[W] hat constitutes reasonable attorney's fees is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Cortez v. Bootsma (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 935, 938.) “The trial court weighs numerous factors in this calculus, and although an agreed-upon contingency fee is one of the factors considered, it is not controlling on the issue.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

In an action for damages brought under Labor Code sections 3700, et seq., when a judgment is obtained against an employer, “[s]uch judgment shall include a reasonable attorney’s fee fixed by the court.” (Labor Code, § 3709.)

Here, Plaintiff obtained a judgment against the employer, GTDP, and so is a prevailing party. Plaintiff now moves for an order awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of $212,230.

The Court may of course award only reasonable attorney’s fees. Plaintiff has submitted evidence that lead counsel spent more than 115 hours working on the case, plus an additional 15 hours of work by an associate and 35 hours of work by a legal assistant. (Liberatore Decl., ¶¶ 7-9, 15.) Lead counsel’s standard and reasonable hourly rate is $500 per hour. (Id., ¶¶ 10-14.) The reasonable hourly rate for the associate is $437 per hour, and for the legal assistant it is $225 per hour. The hours expended are reasonable. The lodestar amount is $71,930.

This matter was handled on a contingency basis, with the attorney bearing the risk of an adverse result or never getting paid for other reasons, including if defendants filed for bankruptcy (as occurred here with Defendant Harney). (Id., ¶ 5.) A multiplier in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 is reasonable in light of the risks taken on by counsel. Using that multiplier produces a reasonable attorney’s fee in the range of $143,860 to $215,790.

In setting a reasonable attorney’s fee, the Court may also consider the contingency fee agreement between counsel and the client. Here, the agreement is for a fee equal to 40 percent of the gross recovery. (Id., ¶ 6.) Forty percent of the judgment amount is $212,230.

Taking into account all of the evidence in the record, the Court determines that a reasonable attorney’s fee in this matter is $212,230.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

The Court FINDS that Plaintiff is the prevailing party, that Plaintiff has a right to recover attorney’s fees under Labor Code section 3709, and that the reasonable attorney’s fees in this matter are $212,230.00, to be added to the judgment against Defendant Go The Distance Productions.

Moving party to give notice.