This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 02:18:33 (UTC).

CUSTODIO CERVANTES VS SUPER SECURE PACKAGING SUPPLIES

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0517

  • Filing Date:

    10/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERESA A. BEAUDET

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CERVANTES CUSTODIO

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 25

SUPER SECURE PACKAGING SUPPLIES

LUCKY BZ

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GOULD & ASSOCIATES APLC

GOULD MICHAEL AARON

Defendant Attorney

PATTERSON GREGORY W

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/26/2018: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

3/5/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

3/22/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

5/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER

Unknown

6/13/2018: Unknown

DECLARATION OF GREGORY W PATTERSON RE MAY 21, 2018 HEARING

6/25/2018: DECLARATION OF GREGORY W PATTERSON RE MAY 21, 2018 HEARING

Witness List

3/1/2019: Witness List

Trial Brief

3/6/2019: Trial Brief

Answer

3/6/2019: Answer

Notice of Lodging

3/6/2019: Notice of Lodging

Minute Order

3/13/2019: Minute Order

Stipulation and Order

4/9/2019: Stipulation and Order

Minute Order

4/24/2019: Minute Order

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

4/24/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

4/25/2019: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

4/29/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/13/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

10/20/2017: SUMMONS

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/29/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 50, Teresa A. Beaudet, Presiding; Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Stipulation, Receipt and Order re: Release of Civil Exhibits

    Read MoreRead Less
65 More Docket Entries
  • 01/16/2018
  • Amendment to Complaint; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGFMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/07/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Custodio Cervantes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. FAILURE TO PAY OVERTIME (CAL LABOR CODE 1194 AND 510(A), CODE OF REGULATIONS 11040); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/20/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC680517    Hearing Date: January 27, 2020    Dept: 50

 

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 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).)