Based on the activities recorded in reviewing routine, simple documents, the Court finds that only 0.50 hours (30 minutes) of the time billed on the above-listed activities is reasonable; thus, a reduction of 0.50 hours is warranted. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34 (hours requested may be reduced where expenditure of time deemed excessive, duplicative, or otherwise unnecessary); see also, e.g., Trujillo v. Ali, No. 1:16-cv-00694-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (reducing the time billed for similar activities reviewing short Court orders to 0.50 hours). Further, the Court finds the amount of time spent preparing for scheduling conferences to be unreasonable, especially given the number of times Mr. Best has appeared for scheduling conferences in similar ADA cases.
Gutierrez, 2015 WL 1498813, at *9 (quoting Moore v. E-Z-N-Quick, No. 1:13-cv-01522-LJO-SAB, 2014 WL 1665034 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014)). See also Trujillo v. Ali, No. 1:16-cv-00694-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016). The Court will therefore deduct .9 hours from Ms. Moore's time entries, and 1.7 hours from Ms. Law's time entries, that are related to the preparation and filing of the motion for default judgment.
Moore v. Chase, Inc., No. 1:14-CV-01178-SKO, 2016 WL 3648949, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 7, 2016) (citing Kalani v. Statewide Petroleum, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-02287-KJM-AC, 2014 WL 4230920, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2014)).Trujillo v. Ali, No. 1:16-CV-00694-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016). This Court agrees and will use an hourly rate of $250 in determining appropriate attorney's fees for Ms. Moore.
Based on the activities recorded in reviewing simple orders, and sending brief routine emails, the Court finds that only 0.20 (12 minutes) of the time billed on the above-listed activities is reasonable; thus, a reduction of 0.10 hours (6 minutes) is warranted. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983) (hours requested may be reduced where expenditure of time deemed excessive, duplicative, or otherwise unnecessary); see also, e.g., Trujillo v. Ali, No. 1:16-cv-00694-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (reducing the time billed for similar activities reviewing short Court orders).
Gutierrez, 2015 WL 1498813, at *9 (quotingMoore v. E-Z-N-Quick, No. 1:13-cv-01522-LJO-SAB, 2014 WL 1665034 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014)). See also Trujillo v. Ali, No. 1:16-cv-00694-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016). The Court will therefore deduct 0.8 hours of paralegal time related to the preparation and filing of the motion for default judgment.
Accordingly, the Court finds that one hour of Ms. Moore's time and one hour of paralegal time is sufficient to prepare the motion. See Gutierrez, 2015 WL 1498813, at *9; Moore v. E-Z-N-Quick, No. 1:13-cv-01522-LJO-SAB, 2014 WL 1665034 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014); Trujillo v. Ali, No. 1:16-cv-00694-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016). The Court will therefore deduct 0.5 hours from Ms. Moore's time entries, 1.4 hours from Ms. Law's time entries, and 1.0 hour from Mr. Medrano's time entries,
The amount of time spent on this case exceeds amounts typically spent on cases of this nature. See, e.g., Johnson v. Top Inv. Prop. LLC, 2018 WL 3993419, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) (11.6 hours expended through default judgment in an ADA case); Trujillo v. Ali, 2016 WL 6902313, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (roughly 25 hours expended through filing of motion for default judgment in ADA case); Johnson v. Lababedy, 2016 WL 4087061, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (9.2 hours expended through filing of motion for default judgment in ADA case); Loskot v. D & K Spirits, LLC, 2011 WL 567364, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011) (17.3 hours expended through filing of motion for default judgment in ADA case).
Gutierrez, 2015 WL 1498813, at *9 (quoting Moore v. E-Z-N-Quick, No. 1:13-cv-01522-LJO-SAB, 2014 WL 1665034 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014)). See also Trujillo v. Ali, No. 1:16-cv-00694-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016). The Court will therefore deduct 1.0 hours from Ms. Moore's time entries, and 0.5 hours from Ms. Law's time entries, that are related to the preparation and filing of the motion for default judgment.
Based on the activities recorded in reviewing routine, simple documents, the Court finds that only 0.40 hours (24 minutes) of the time billed on the above-listed activities is reasonable; thus, a reduction of 0.40 hours is warranted. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34 (hours requested may be reduced where expenditure of time deemed excessive, duplicative, or otherwise unnecessary); see also, e.g., Trujillo v. Ali, No. 1:16-cv-00694-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (reducing the time billed for similar activities reviewing short Court orders). With regard to the hourly rate to be charged for Plaintiff's lead counsel, Mr. Best, Plaintiff requests $300. (Doc. 27-1 at 9.)
The undersigned finds 11.6 hours to be a reasonable amount of time to spend on a case of this nature. See, e.g., Trujillo v. Ali, Case No. 1:16-cv-0694 LJO SKO, 2016 WL 6902313, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (roughly 25 hours expended through filing of motion for default judgment); Johnson v. Lababedy, No. 2:16-cv-0126 KJM AC, 2016 WL 4087061, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2016) (9.2 hours expended through filing of motion for default judgment); Loskot v. D & K Spirits, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-0684 WBS DAD, 2011 WL 567364, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011) (17.3 hours expended through filing of motion for default judgment).