On 10/20/2017 CUSTODIO CERVANTES filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against SUPER SECURE PACKAGING SUPPLIES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA A. BEAUDET. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****0517
10/20/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
TERESA A. BEAUDET
CERVANTES CUSTODIO
DOES 1 THROUGH 25
SUPER SECURE PACKAGING SUPPLIES
LUCKY BZ
GOULD & ASSOCIATES APLC
GOULD MICHAEL AARON
PATTERSON GREGORY W
2/26/2018: Minute Order
3/5/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER
3/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
5/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER
6/13/2018: Unknown
6/25/2018: DECLARATION OF GREGORY W PATTERSON RE MAY 21, 2018 HEARING
3/1/2019: Witness List
3/6/2019: Trial Brief
3/6/2019: Answer
3/6/2019: Notice of Lodging
3/13/2019: Minute Order
4/9/2019: Stipulation and Order
4/24/2019: Minute Order
4/24/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)
4/25/2019: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter
4/29/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
12/13/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
10/20/2017: SUMMONS
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)
at 1:30 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued
Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk
at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued
Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)
Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk
at 1:30 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Trial - Held - Continued
Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)
Minute Order ( (Trial)); Filed by Clerk
Stipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits
Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGFMENT CONFERENCE
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
Complaint; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME (CAL LABOR CODE 1194 AND 510(A), CODE OF REGULATIONS 11040); ETC
SUMMONS
Case Number: BC680517 Hearing Date: January 27, 2020 Dept: 50
custodio cervantes, Plaintiff, vs. super secure packaging supplies, et al. Defendants. |
Case No.: |
BC 680517 |
Hearing Date: |
January 27, 2020 |
|
Hearing Time: |
8:30 a.m. |
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
|
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
[1] The Court notes that a notice of appeal was filed on November 8, 2019 by Defendants. However, because “an award of attorney fees as costs is a collateral matter which is embraced in the action but is not affected by the order from which an appeal is taken,” the “filing of a notice of appeal does not stay any proceedings to determine the matter of costs and does not prevent the trial court from determining a proper award of attorney fees claimed as costs.” (Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 369 (superseded by statute regarding a different issue).)