****5412
12/04/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Labor - Wrongful Termination
Los Angeles, California
ESCOBEDO EDGAR
CSC AUTO SALVAGE AND DISMANTLING INC.
CSC TRADING
SAKAJIAN SCOTT DBA CSC TRADING
ELIHU KAVEH SAM
JONES DAVID GARY
1/19/2018: ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT
3/1/2018: Unknown
3/2/2018: Unknown
3/2/2018: Minute Order
3/8/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
5/10/2018: Unknown
5/10/2018: Minute Order
5/10/2018: RESPONSE OF DEFENDANTS AND COUNSEL GARY KAST TO OSC RE NON APPEARANCE AT CMC. MAY 10, 2018
7/3/2018: Proof of Service
7/3/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS CSC AUTO SALVAGE AND DISMANTLING, INC. AND SCOTT SAKAJ1AN TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE); ETC.
7/11/2018: Minute Order
7/27/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
8/3/2018: DECLARATION OF DAVID G. JONES RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS CSC AUTO SALVAGE AND DISMANTLING, INC. AND SCOTT SAKAJIAN TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET O
8/6/2018: NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION/REPLY TO MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS CSC AUTO SALVAGE AND DISMANTLING, INC. AND SCOTT SAKAJIAN TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ON
8/9/2018: Proof of Service
8/9/2018: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND ITS C
8/9/2018: NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT CSC AUTO SALVAGE AND DISMANTLING, INC. FIRST SETS OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES?AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST. DEFENDANT AND ITS
8/9/2018: NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES BY DEFENDANT CSC AUTO SALVAGE AND DISMANTLING, INC. FIRST SETS OF FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT AND
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
[-] Read LessDocketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
[-] Read LessDocketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (ReMandatory Settlement Conference Setting) - Held
[-] Read LessDocketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held
[-] Read LessDocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference; Conference Re: Mandatory Settlement Confer...)); Filed by Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketMotion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by Edgar Escobedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court
[-] Read LessDocketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference - Held - Continued
[-] Read LessDocketat 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (ReMandatory Settlement Conference Setting) - Held - Continued
[-] Read LessDocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference; Conference Re: Mandatory Settlement Confer...)); Filed by Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Edgar Escobedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Edgar Escobedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
[-] Read LessDocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
[-] Read LessDocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
[-] Read LessDocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
[-] Read LessDocketComplaint; Filed by Edgar Escobedo (Plaintiff)
[-] Read LessDocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY; ETC
[-] Read LessDocketSUMMONS
[-] Read LessCase Number: ****5412 Hearing Date: July 23, 2020 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
Hearing Date: July 23, 2020
Case Name: Escobedo v. CSC Auto Salvage and Dismantling, Inc., et al.
Case No.: ****5412
Matter: Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Moving Party: Plaintiff Edgar Escobedo
Responding Party: Defendants CSC Auto Salvage and Dismantling, Inc. and Scott Sakajian
Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is granted in part.
The parties have settled this matter and have agreed that Plaintiff may move for attorneys’ fees in an amount ranging from $40,000 to $100,000. Plaintiff’s lodestar figure is $149,786.20, but Plaintiff seeks $100,000.00 in fees and $6,985.98 in costs given the parameters of his settlement.
Defendants oppose the Motion on the grounds that (1) the hourly rates billed are excessive; (2) Plaintiff seeks fees for claims for which there is no statute providing for attorneys’ fees; (3) attorneys improperly billed for clerical tasks; (4) there are vague billing entries; (5) there is duplicative billing; (6) too many attorneys were involved; (7) billing for reconstructing time is inappropriate; (7) counsel may have only billed at current rates; (8) there should be a .75 negative multiplier; and (9) no costs are warranted because a memorandum of costs was not filed.
The Court notes the following inadequacies with Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees request: (1) the request is partially premised on claims for which there is no statute allowing for fees; (2) the hourly rates of certain paralegals were excessive; and (3) an excessive number of attorneys billed for matters which do not appear necessary and reasonable for the litigation. However, the deductions considered by the Court would not place Plaintiff’s lodestar figure below $100,000. Therefore, pursuant to the parties’ settlement, the Court awards Plaintiff $100,000 in attorneys’ fees.
Defenants’ objections to Plaintiff’s costs are overruled because Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs on May 4, 2020, but Defendants failed to file a motion to tax costs. On the other hand, the Court will award no more than $6,825.30 in costs because this is the amount requested in Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs. In sum, the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is granted in part.