This Court agrees and finds that Mr. Ellis' time for appearances with Mr. Levin at administrative and court proceedings is compensable.”); see also Cosby v. Autozone, Inc., No. 08-505, 2010 WL 5232992, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010) (“These arguments are without merit.
See Pehle v. Dufour, No. 06-1889, 2014 WL 546115, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2014) ($350 reasonable hourly rate for labor attorney practicing since 1989); Knox v. Chiang, No. 05-02198, 2013 WL 2434606, at *7-9 (E.D. Cal. June 5, 2013) ($450 reasonable hourly rate for attorneys with extensive trial and appellate experience in labor and constitutional law); Monterrubio v. Best Buy Stores, L.P, 291 F.R.D. 443, 460 (E.D. Cal. 2013) ($400 prevailing hourly rate for counsel in wage-and-hour class action). See also McCarthy v. Reynolds, No. 09-2495, 2011 WL 4344147, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011) ($285 reasonable hourly rate for counsel in employment action pursuant to Title VII and FEHA); Cosby v. Autozone, Inc., No. 08-505, 2010 WL 5232992, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010) ($375 reasonable hourly rate for counsel who assisted trial counsel in FEHA litigation). B. Enhancement of Lodestar
Taylor, 2009 WL 453050, at *10. The Court's own research has revealed that the prevailing hourly rate for experienced civil rights attorneys practicing in the Sacramento area does not exceed $400.See, e.g., H.W. v. E. Sierra Unified School Dist., 2012 WL 4469262, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2012) (concluding that the requested hourly rate of $375 per hour was a reasonable rate for attorneys practicing civil rights litigation in the Sacramento area); Jones v. County of Sacramento, 2011 WL 3584332, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011) (concluding that an hourly rate of $350 requested in a civil rights case by an attorney with over 35 years of litigation experience was "in line with those prevailing in the Sacramento market for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience and reputation"); Cosby v. Autozone, Inc., 2010 WL 5232992, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010) (finding that $375 per hour was a prevailing Sacramento rate for experienced attorneys litigating cases under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and finding the requested fees of $400 and $450 per hour to be excessive); Friedman v. Cal. State Employee Ass'n, 2010 WL 2880148, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2010) (finding that $275 per hour was a reasonable rate for Sacramento civil rights attorneys); Beecham v. City of West Sacramento, 2009 WL 3824793, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009) (finding that $375 per hour was the prevailing market rate charged by Sacramento attorneys in a civil right case and refusing to award the requested $525-$550 per hour fee); Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Randolph, 2008 WL 4453627, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2008) (finding that an hourly rate of $385 for a lead trial counsel in a civil rights case was reasonable for the Sacramento market). In conducting its research, the Court has paid particular attention to cases decided within two years of the
Taylor, 2009 WL 453050, at *10. The Court's own research has revealed that the prevailing hourly rate for experienced civil rights attorneys practicing in the Sacramento area does not exceed $400.See, e.g., H.W. v. E. Sierra Unified School Dist., 2012 WL 4469262, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2012) (concluding that the requested hourly rate of $375 per hour was a reasonable rate for attorneys practicing civil rights litigation in the Sacramento area); Jones v. County of Sacramento, 2011 WL 3584332, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011) (concluding that an hourly rate of $350 requested in a civil rights case by an attorney with over 35 years of litigation experience was "in line with those prevailing in the Sacramento market for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience and reputation"); Cosby v. Autozone, Inc., 2010 WL 5232992, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010) (finding that $375 per hour was a prevailing Sacramento rate for experienced attorneys litigating cases under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and finding the requested fees of $400 and $450 per hour to be excessive); Friedman v. Cal. State Employee Ass'n, 2010 WL 2880148, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 21, 2010) (finding that $275 per hour was a reasonable rate for Sacramento civil rights attorneys); Beecham v. City of West Sacramento, 2009 WL 3824793, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009) (finding that $375 per hour was the prevailing market rate charged by Sacramento attorneys in a civil right case and refusing to award the requested $525-$550 per hour fee); Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Randolph, 2008 WL 4453627, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2008) (finding that an hourly rate of $385 for a lead trial counsel in a civil rights case was reasonable for the Sacramento market). In conducting its research, the Court has paid particular attention to cases decided within two years of the
Other cases are consistent with plaintiffs' authority. See Jones v. County of Sacramento, 2011 WL 3584332, *9 (E. D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2011) ($350 per hour); Cosby v. Autozone, Inc., 2010 WL 5232992 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010) (unopposed rate of $375 per hour). Based on these cases, the requested hourly rates are found to be reasonable.
The court is not persuaded by defendants argument for a $300 prevailing market rate for time expended by attorney Katz. Contrary to defendants' suggestion, Alaniz and Costa are not the only cases in which judges of this court have issued fee awards with hourly rates in excess of $300 per hour for top-rated counsel in similar matters and for similar services as those that were rendered in this case. For instance, in Cosby v. Autozone, Inc., No. CIV. S-08-505 LKK DAD, 2010 WL 5232992 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010), plaintiff's counsel obtained a successful verdict on claims arising under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Cosby, 2010 WL 52322992 at *1.