Case Name: Jane Doe v. Jose Cruz Romero Hernandez, et al.

Case Number: 1-13-CV-252359

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for award of attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter and is entitled by statute to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 998; see also Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Plaintiff’s request for out-of-pocket costs in the amount of $11,472.92 is GRANTED; Defendants EAH, Inc., Delmas Park Associates, L.P., and Core Affordable Housing, LLC (erroneously sued herein as “The Core Companies”) (collectively, “Defendants”) have not set forth any argument or objection to the reasonableness of these requested costs.

Given that the overall costs claimed here are almost entirely attorney’s fees, a lodestar analysis is warranted, since the lodestar method of calculating reasonable fee awards is the “starting point of every fee award[.]” (See Serrano v. Priest (Serrano III) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 n.23.) “Serrano III requires the trial court to first determine a ‘touchstone’ or ‘lodestar’ figure based on a “careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation for each attorney . . . involved in the presentation of the case.” (Serrano, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at p. 48). After making this calculation, the court may consider other factors and assign a multiplier that may augment or diminish the lodestar amount.

Here, Plaintiff’s papers supporting their request for attorneys’ fees provide evidence regarding the work performed, the corresponding time spent, and the billing rates for each of the attorneys working on the case. The billing records submitted by Plaintiff are highly detailed with regard to the nature of the work performed and the corresponding time expended. Plaintiff also provides evidentiary declarations establishing that the hourly rates used are comparable to rates charged by other firms in the same region for attorneys with similar qualifications and experience. While Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request for application of a multiplier to the attorneys’ fees and dispute the hourly rate of attorneys’ fees requested by Plaintiffs, they do not offer any specific objections to the billing entries submitted by Plaintiff detailing the work performed/number of hours expended.

Based on an evaluation of the evidence submitted, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees are well-supported and reasonable. As noted above, Plaintiff provided evidence regarding the reasonableness of the hourly rates and a detailed basis for the fees requested. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees in the sum of $100,087.50 is GRANTED.

Plaintiff also requests the addition of a multiplier of 2.0 to augment the attorneys’ fees. The parties make several arguments analyzing (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions presented; (2) the skill of counsel required in the case; (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys; (4) the contingent nature of the fee award; and (5) the public policy recognition of the risks associated with representation of plaintiffs in discrimination cases. Taking these and other applicable factors into consideration (see Serrano, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at p. 48), the Court finds that a multiplier is not justified, primarily because the issues presented were not especially novel or complex. Additionally, the skill of counsel is adequately reflected in the hourly fees billed by counsel in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for the addition of a multiplier to the attorneys’ fees incurred is DENIED.