18-CIV-00620 LUCIA CENTENO VS. BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

LUCIA CENTENO BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY
ROBERT S. NELSON ANTHONY M. ISOLA

LUCIA CENTENO’S MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiff Lucia Centeno (“Plaintiff”) for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is ruled on as follows: Plaintiff’s 18-page Memorandum of Points and Authorities violates California Rules of Court Rule 3.1113(d). Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the page limit requirements in the future.

The court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in this action. (See Nelson Decl., Exh. 7 (Settlement Agreement); C.C.P. § 998; Gov. Code § 12965(b).) Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to such fees and costs, but contests the amounts requested by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff requests an award of $397,080.00 in attorneys’ fees, consisting of $282,470.00 in lodestar fees, with a multiplier of 1.5 applied only to attorneys’ fees not related to this motion.

The court applies a lodestar method, which is calculated by applying the number of hours worked by the attorneys by a reasonable hourly rate. After reviewing all of the arguments and evidence submitted, the court awards Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees of 333.8 hours at an hourly rate of $535.00 per hour, for a total of $178,583.00. This determination included: (1) reducing the number of hours after apportioning time for Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim for which Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication was granted; (2) no time awarded for media activities, and preparation time and hearing on EDD unemployment benefits; and (3) reducing the time involving retaining a human resources expert, particularly Plaintiff’s ex parte application to replace expert Young that the court denied. Also, Plaintiff billed at an hourly rate of $600/$650 per hour, while Defendant asserted that an hourly rate of $480 per hour was reasonable. The court finds that an hourly rate of $535.00 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate here. (See Nelson Decl.; Isola Decl., Exh. 5; Giamela Decl.)

Plaintiff further requests a multiplier of 1.5 for all billings not related to this motion. The trial court considers a number of factors in adjusting the lodestar figure for a multiplier: (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skills displayed in presenting them, (2) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (3) the contingent nature of the fee award both from the point of view of eventual victory on the merits and the point of view of establishing eligibility for an award. (Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1251-1252.) The court finds a multiplier of 1.2 appropriate after considering such factors.

Since Plaintiff’s counsel billed 23.4 hours for this motion for attorneys’ fees (16 hours for preparing this motion, and the additional 7.4 hours stated in Plaintiff’s counsel’s reply declaration), the court applied the multiplier to 310.4 hours of the 333.8 hours. 310.4 hours x $535 per hour is $166,064.00. After applying a multiplier of 1.2, the fees after the multiplier are $199,276.80. The attorneys’ fees billed for this motion that were not subject to a multiplier are 23.4 hours x $535 per hour, or $12,519.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is GRANTED attorneys’ fees of $211,795.80 ($199,276.80 + $12,519).

Plaintiff is also GRANTED costs in the amount of $25,603.73. Defendant challenges part of the expert costs of $14,784.94, but these costs are supported by the invoice submitted by Plaintiff. Defendant also contests the $3,000.00 mediation fees incurred by Plaintiff from a mediation that was not court-ordered. The court has discretion to award such mediation fees though, and finds that Plaintiff is entitled to such fees and costs based on the facts and circumstances here. (See Berkeley Cement, Inc. v. Regents of University of California (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1133, 1143.)

Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections are ruled on as follows:

A. Nelson Declaration

Objection nos. 1 and 3 are SUSTAINED based on hearsay.

Objection no. 2 is SUSTAINED based on Evidence Code sections 1152 and 1154.

Objection nos. 4 and 5 are OVERRULED.

B. Finberg Declaration

Objection no. 1 is SUSTAINED based on lack of foundation and improper expert opinion.

Objection no. 2 is OVERRULED.

C. Mullen Declaration

Objection no. 1 is SUSTAINED based on lack of foundation and improper expert opinion.

Objection no. 2 is OVERRULED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.