Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: KC066276, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC066276    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: L

Defendant Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is

GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $4,256,213.90.

Discussion

Commodity Trucking Acquisition, LLC (“CTA”) moves the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1021, 1033.5, 1032 and 1717 and California Rules of Court rule 3.1702, for an award of $5,119,981.25 in attorneys’ fees.

Evidentiary Objections

The court rules on USA Waste’s evidentiary objections as follows: Overruled as to Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Alfred Shaumyan (“Shaumyan”) and Overruled as to Exhibits 1-3 to the Declaration of Aileen M. Hunter (“Hunter”).

Merits

The court has previously determined that CTA is entitled to attorney’s fees under the Settlement Agreement. The following discussion, then, is limited to the issue of reasonableness of fees:

“[T]rial courts have broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee award. This determination is necessarily ad hoc and must be resolved on the particular circumstances of each case.” (Meister v. Regents of University of California (1998) 67 Cal.App.4^th 437, 452.) “Trial judges are entrusted with this discretionary determination because they are in the best position to assess the value of the professional services rendered in their courts.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4^th 1315, 1321.)

“[O]nce a party has established he or she is entitled to fees, the lodestar method is generally presumed to be the starting point in analyzing the appropriate amount of attorney fees. Under this method, a court first calculates the number of hours reasonably spent multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate for each billing professional, and then may adjust the amount based on various relevant factors to ensure the fee reflects the fair market value [of the attorney services] for the particular action. (K.I. v. Wagner (2014) 225 Cal.App.4^th 1412, 1425 [quotation marks and citations omitted].)

“In determining hourly rates, the court must look to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community. The rates of comparable attorneys in the forum district are usually used. In making its calculation, the court should also consider the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees. The court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a reasonable hourly rate.” (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4^th 972, 1009 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

Here, USA Waste has provided the court with an “Index of Billing Personnel,” as well as a “Rate Adjustment” prepared by attorney Andre E. Jardini (“Jardini”), who has been a managing partner of Knapp, Petersen & Clarke (“KPC”) since 1984 and is the founder and President of KPC Legal Audit Services, Inc., a dba of KPC established in October 1991 “specializ[ing] in the review and audit of legal billings and consulting and education on legal cost containment.” (Jardini Decl., ¶ 14.) Jardini proposes, inter alia, that the rates for attorneys who billed the most hours on this matter, i.e., Robert J. Hoffman (“Hoffman”)[1], Stuart Price (“Price”)[2], Hunter[3], Anne Redcross Beehler (“Beehler”)[4], Shaumyan[5] and Traci Choi (“Choi”)[6] should be reduced as follows: (1) As to Hoffman: from $1,100.00/hour to $631.00/hour; (2) As to Price: from $810.00-$895.00/hour to $675.00; (3) As to Hunter: from $690.00-$930.00/hour to $600.00; (4) As to Beehler: from $590.00-$690.00/hour to $394.00/hour; (5) as to Shaumyan: from $645.00-$895.00/hour to $532.00/hour and (6) As to Choi: from $425.00-$625.00/hour to $425.00/hour. The court has found Jardini’s declaration and accompanying attachments useful in identifying the hourly rates and number of hours billed by CTA’s defense team.

Based on the court’s own experience and knowledge, as well as on the experience and qualifications of counsel as set forth in the Declarations of Hoffman, Hunter and Shaumyan,

the court will reduce the hourly rates Hoffman, Price, Hunter, Beehler and Choi as follows: (1) As to Hoffman: from $1,100.00/hour to $850.00; (2) as to Price: from $810.00-$895.00/hour to $750.00; (3) as to Hunter: from $690.00-$930.00/hour to $690.00/hour; (4) As to Beehler: from $590.00-$690.00/hour to $590.00/hour; (5) As to Shaumyan: from $645.00-$895.00/hour to $645.00/hour and (6) as to Choi: from $425.00-$625.00/hour to $425.00/hour.

According to the court’s calculation, the above reduced rates, as applied to the hours represented to have been expended, results in a reduction of $570,017.40 to the total attorney’s fees amount requested.

The court otherwise determines that the “Rates Adjustment” set forth in Jardini’s declaration as to all other attorneys and other billing personnel[7] is appropriate. According to the court’s calculation, these reduced rates, as applied to the hours represented to have been expended, result in a further reduction of $293,749.90 (i.e., $49,707.00 on page 1, $82,056.00 on page 2 and $161,986.90 on page 3) to the total attorney’s fees amount requested.

a.      Reasonableness of Time Incurred

“[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4^th 359, 396.) “In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4^th 550, 564.)

As noted by the court in its March 3, 2023 order, “the scale of this litigation was enormous.” (March 3, 2023 Order, p. 6.) When USA Waste added CTA to the case in October 2017, the case had already been pending for four years and was set for trial on May 8, 2018. (Shaumyan Decl., ¶ 6.) In January 2019, over three years prior to trial, USA Waste characterized the case as “the final piece of a decade-long, multiple-party litigation that comprised of:

• Five (5) related lawsuits;

• Over one hundred and twenty (120) deposition sessions;

• Hundreds of thousands of pages of documents;

• Four (4) motions for summary judgment;

• Over seventy-five (75) motions (discovery, in limine, and requested legal briefs)

• Two (2) bench trials;

• One jury trial (that was dismissed after a jury was impaneled);

• One contested Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case;

• Four (4) petitions for writ of mandamus filed with the Court of Appeal; and,

• Two (2) appeals filed with the Court of Appeal.” (Id., ¶ 7, Exh. 1.)

CTA represents that “[t]hroughout the case there were over 40 motions and ex parte applications, written discovery, over 9,000 documents, 25 deposition sessions, and 5 experts.” (Reply, 8:27-9:1; Shaumyan Decl., ¶¶ 12-16). USA Waste sought $16 million in compensatory damages, in addition to an unspecified amount of punitive damages, against CTA. USA Waste cannot now convince the court that “[t]he allegations stated against CTA by USA Waste were simple and straightforward.” (Opp., 14:13). The fact remains that CTA was entitled to pursue all available avenues of defense, which CTA clearly did, given the results obtained.

Further, trial was originally scheduled to start in May 2018, but was thereafter continued due to a myriad of factors, including, but not limited to, a stay issued by the Court of Appeal, a reassignment of the case from Judge Dan Oki (who retired while the case was on appeal) to Judge Gloria White-Brown, and the COVID-19 pandemic. (Shaumyan Decl., ¶¶ 17-23). During this time-period, certain members of CTA’s legal team, including Price, Choi and senior paralegal Holly Ottiger, left and had to be replaced. (Hunter Decl., ¶¶ 5 and 6; Shaumyan Decl., ¶ 23).  

Under these circumstances, the court is not inclined to reduce the number of hours spent. The court grants the motion, but reduces the amount of attorney’s fees sought by $863,767.30. The total amount in fees awarded, then, is $4,256,213.90.