Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****0517    Hearing Date: January 27, 2020    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

This motion for attorney fees is brought by Plaintiff Custodio Cervantes (“Plaintiff”) following trial on Plaintiff’s wage and hour claims against Defendants Lucky B and Lucky BZ (jointly, “Defendants”). On August 30, 2019, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the total sum of $25,954.66. The motion is unopposed.[1]

Discussion

Labor Code section 1194 provides that “any employee receiving less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action . . . reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”

Here, Plaintiff prevailed on his claim for failure to pay overtime. (See July 23, 2019 Statement of Decision, pp. 21-22.)

Labor Code section 226, subdivision (e)(1) provides that “a knowing and intentional failure by an employer to comply with subdivision (a) [dealing with the timely provision of accurate itemized wage statements] . . . is entitled to an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.”

Here, Plaintiff prevailed on his claim for failure to provide correct itemized wage statements. (See July 23, 2019 Statement of Decision, pp. 23-24.)

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

“[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. … The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. 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.” (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (internal citations omitted); see Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 818 (applying the lodestar method to determine attorneys’ fees in Song-Beverly action).)

The Hourly Rate of Counsel

From July 2017 through the present, Plaintiff’s counsel, Gould & Associates, spent a total of 210.9 hours in prosecuting this matter. (Gould Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7, Ex. 1; Zeif Decl., ¶¶ 7, 9, Ex. 3.) Counsels’ hourly billing rates are as follows: Michael A. Gould, $750 and Aarin A. Zeif, $550. (Gould Decl., ¶ 6; Zeif Decl., ¶ 8.) The attorneys each attest to the reasonableness of their hourly rate as well as their experience. (Gould Decl., ¶¶ 2-4; Zeif Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.)

The Court finds that the hourly rates requested by Plaintiff’s counsel are reasonable and commensurate with rates prevailing in the community for similar work.

Reasonableness of the Requested Fees

“[T]he court's discretion in awarding attorney fees is … to be exercised so as to fully compensate counsel for the prevailing party for services reasonably provided to his or her client.” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.) The trial court may reduce the award where the fee request appears unreasonably inflated, such as where the attorneys’ efforts are unorganized or duplicative. (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635, footnote 21.) “[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, supra, at p. 396.)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel has attached billing statements to the instant motion detailing the nature of the work performed. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s fee request appears reasonable.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $127,917 in attorney fees from Defendants.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED: January 27, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court