Summary
approving $350 hourly rate for attorney with 20 years of litigation experience, noting that requested rate was unopposed by defendant and in line with rates approved in Northern District
Summary of this case from Johnson v. ShahkaramiOpinion
Case No. 18-cv-00583-SVK
02-21-2019
RICHARD JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL CASTAGNOLA, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 36, 37
Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Johnson's motion for attorney's fees and costs. ECF 34. After prevailing on summary judgment, Plaintiff moved for $11,410 in attorney's fees and $149.25 in costs. ECF 34 at 6. Plaintiff's motion asserts that his counsel spent 39.1 hours on the case and provides a list of completed tasks without detailing how much time counsel spent on each task. Id. at 3-6. Defendant Daniel Castagnola opposes Plaintiff's motion based on Plaintiff's failure to provide hourly allocations for each task. ECF 36. In response, Plaintiff's reply provides a time allocation for each type of task and a revised attorney's fees request of $12,425. ECF 37 at 2-6.
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and vacates the March 12, 2019 hearing. As explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Defendant owns Castagnola Café & Deli in Capitola, California. ECF 23-1 at 2. Plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair and qualifies as a disabled individual, visited the café on May 30, 2017. Id. During that visit, Plaintiff encountered a number of unlawful barriers. Id. at 2-4. Based on this experience, Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 26, 2018, alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"). See ECF 1.
On October 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment based on facts deemed admitted by Defendant's failure to timely respond to Plaintiff's requests for admission. ECF 23. When Defendant failed to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment by the November 5, 2018 deadline, the Court issued an order directing Defendant to show cause why the Court should not enter summary judgment against him. ECF 27. Both Parties responded to the Court's order to show cause. ECF 29; ECF 30; ECF 31. Defendant stated that he did not oppose Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment provided that Plaintiff's statutory damages are limited to $4,000. ECF 30 at 1. Because Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the Court granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment and awarded Plaintiff $4,000 in statutory damages. ECF 32. The Court further ordered the Parties to meet and confer regarding the amount of attorney's fees and costs to be awarded and instructed Plaintiff to file a motion for fees and costs if no agreement was reached. Id.
II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
Under the ADA, "the court or agency, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party. . . a reasonable attorney's fee, including litigation expenses, and costs." 42 U.S.C. § 12205; see also Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 F.3d 1122, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2008) ("A prevailing plaintiff under the ADA 'should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.'"). California Civil Code § 52 also provides for "any attorney's fees that may be determined by the court" when a defendant discriminates against an individual in violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a).
The Court calculates attorney's fees according to "the 'loadstar' method." Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). This requires the Court to calculate fees by starting with "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). To determine the reasonableness of an attorney's rate, "the established standard . . . is the 'rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.'" Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (citation omitted). And to determine the number of hours for which to award fees, the court must "exclude . . . hours that were not 'reasonably expended.'" Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434 (quoting S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976)). For example, the Court may reduce hours if it "reasonably concludes that preparation of a motion 'demanded little of counsel's time.'" Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 950 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The party seeking fees bears the burden of providing documentation to demonstrate the reasonableness of the hours spent on the litigation. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Specifically, the party must "submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed," and "[w]here the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may reduce the award accordingly." Id.
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees for 42.0 hours of work at rate of $350 an hour for a total of $14,700. ECF 37 at 6. Plaintiff notes that the Court should deduct $2,275 from this total to account for money that was ordered to be paid to Plaintiff's counsel by Defendant's counsel as part of a previous order to show cause. Id. That brings the total requested fess to $12,425. Id.
Plaintiff asserts that $350 per an hour is a reasonable rate for his attorney Monica Castillo. ECF 34 at 6. Plaintiff supports this rate by noting that Castillo works in the San Francisco Bay Area and has twenty years of litigation experience. Id. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's requested rate. ECF 36. Further, the Court finds that other judges have awarded fees based on similar rates in this District. See e.g. Shaw v. Five M, LLC, No. 16-CV-03955-BLF, 2017 WL 747465, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (approving a $450 hourly rate in an ADA case). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff's requested rate of $350 is reasonable.
Plaintiff's motion asserts that Castillo spent 39.1 hours on the case. ECF 34 at 3. Although Plaintiff's motion provides a list of tasks that Castillo completed, Plaintiff's motion fails to provide the dates that Castillo completed those tasks or a breakdown of the time spent on each task. Id. at 3-6. Defendant's opposition points out this lack of detail and argues that without such "information it is impossible to determine whether the time spent on those 'tasks' [was] reasonable or excessive." ECF 36 at 1. Plaintiff's reply responds by providing a chart with a list of tasks, the time spent on each task and the date(s) that Castillo performed each task. ECF 37 at 3-6.
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff's failure to set forth details regarding the dates and time allocations for Castillo's tasks prevented Defendant from meaningfully analyzing and opposing Plaintiff's motion. Indeed, even Plaintiff's reply brief provides an inadequate level of detail. Plaintiff includes multiple tasks and multiple dates for a single time entry. Id. For example, Plaintiff claims 2.7 hours for (1) reviewing the Mediator's report regarding ADR violations, (2) reviewing the Court's order to show cause, (3) preparing a response to the order show cause, (3) attending two hearings and (4) reviewing the Court's orders on September 7th, 18th and 19; October 9th and 17; November 12th, 19th and 28th and December 20th. Id. at 4. Plaintiff's lack of detail inhibits the Court's ability to analyzing the reasonableness of the time spent on each task. The Court also finds that some of Plaintiff's time entries seek to recover for unreasonable tasks or an excessive amount of time spent on a task. The Court therefore reduces the hours for which Plaintiff may recover according to the chart below. See Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that if the moving party fails to provide sufficiently detailed billing records, the district court may "simply reduce[] the fee to a reasonable amount").
| Task(s) | HoursClaimed | HoursApproved | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prepared a request for entry ofdefault | 0.3 | 0.0 | Plaintiff never filed a request for entryof default in this case. Plaintiff alsofailed to file an executed summons, sothe Court cannot determine ifpreparation of a request for entry ofdefault would have been appropriate.Accordingly, Plaintiff's requested timeis unreasonable and excessive. |
| Engaged in several telephonecalls to Defendant (prior to hisrepresentation) regarding thepending default request | 0.8 | 0.0 | Plaintiff never filed a request for entryof default in this case, so no pendingdefault request existed to confer withDefendant about. Accordingly,Plaintiff's requested time isunreasonable and excessive. |
| Task(s) | HoursClaimed | HoursApproved | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negotiated with Defendant'scounsel regarding injunctiverelief | 0.2 | 0.0 | Plaintiff's first and only visit toDefendant's café was May 30, 2017.ECF 23-1 at 1. Accordingly, billingfor negotiations in April 2017, onemonth prior to Plaintiff's visit, isunreasonable. |
| Prepared for and attended anunsuccessful mediation | 4.2 | 2.0 | Given the straight forward nature ofthe case, the Court finds that time spentpreparing for meditation and attendingthe mediation is excessive, especiallybecause Defendant did not attend themediation (ECF 34-1 at ¶ 8). TheCourt has to estimate how much timePlaintiff spent for each task becausePlaintiff fails to provide such detail inhis motion. |
| Propounded forminterrogatories, requests fordocuments and requests foradmissions | 3.3 | 1.0 | Plaintiff attached his requests foradmission to his motion for summaryjudgment. ECF 23-2. Such requestsare approximately one and a half pagesand could have been drafted efficientlygiven the straight forward nature of thecase, counsel's experience and thenumber of ADA cases that Plaintiff hasbrought. Further, Plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment relies only on hisrequests for admission, so it is unclearif Plaintiff's interrogatories ordocument requests were necessary.See ECF 23-1. Accordingly, Plaintiff'srequested time is unreasonable andexcessive. |
| Task(s) | HoursClaimed | HoursApproved | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Review Mediator's report reADR violations; reviewCourt's OSC to M. Welch;prepared a response to anOSC, reviewed Defendant'scounsel's response to OSC,attended two hearingsregarding OSC issued toDefendant's counsel andreviewed the Court's orders | 2.7 | 1.0 | Plaintiff's task description indicatesthat the Court's order to show causeregarding ADR violations was directedto Defendant's counsel. ECF 37 at 4.Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel's timespent responding that order to showcause is unreasonable. The Court mustestimate how much time Plaintiff spenton the order to show cause responsebecause Plaintiff fails to provide suchdetail in his motion. Similarly, theCourt has no way to evaluate the timePlaintiff's counsel incurred regardingthe hearings because Plaintiff failed toprovide such details. |
| Reviewed Court's order toshow cause regardingPlaintiff's motion forsummary judgment andprepared a response to theorder to show cause | 0.6 | 0.1 | The Court's order to show causeregarding Plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment was directed toDefendant and did not request aresponse from Plaintiff. Accordingly,Plaintiff's counsel's time spentresponding the order to show cause isunreasonable. The Court mustestimate how much time Plaintiff spenton the order to show cause responsebecause Plaintiff fails to provide suchdetail in his motion. |
| Correspondence withDefendant's counsel reproposed date for motion forfees and costs; prepared theinstant motion for fees andcosts, prepared reply toDefendant's opposition;attended the hearing | 8.0 | 1.5 | Based on the lack of detail inPlaintiff's motion and the rolecounsel's own time keeping recordsshould have had in bringing thismotion, the Court finds that the amountof time spent preparing Plaintiff'smotions for fees and costs isunreasonable and excessive. TheCourt further reduces the time becausethe Court has taken this matter undersubmission without a hearing. |
| Task(s) | HoursClaimed | HoursApproved | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engaged in extensive andnumerous written and verbalcommunications with PlaintiffJohnson regarding statusduring the entire course of thisprotracted litigation | 5.2 | 0.5 | Plaintiff seeks recovery forcommunications on 25 different dates.Plaintiff's failure to separate thesetasks by date precludes the Court fromdetermining their reasonableness.Further, given both Plaintiff's and hisCounsel's extensive ADA litigationexperience, the Court finds that thenumber of hours spent on case updates,without sufficient detail to tie thoseupdates to this case, is unreasonableand excessive. |
| Totals: | 25.3 | 6.1 | Total Reduction: 19.2 hours |
For the reasons outlined in the chart above, the Court reduces Plaintiff's claimed hours by 19.2 hours. Accordingly, Plaintiff's approved hour total is 22.8 hours. This brings Plaintiff's total fees to $5,705 (22.8 x $350 = $7,980, reduced by $2,275).
Plaintiff seeks $149.25 in costs for $137.85 in filing fees and $11.40 in photocopying fees. ECF 34 at 6. Such costs are reasonable, and as a result, the Court awards Plaintiff $149.25 in costs.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fess and costs. The Court AWARDS Plaintiff $5,705 in fees and $149.25 in costs.
SO ORDERED. Dated: February 21, 2019
/s/_________
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge