Castaneda v. Lopez

Filed 4/2/08 Castaneda v. Lopez CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tricia Ann Bigelow, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Stephen Glick and Stephen Glick for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________

INTRODUCTION

In a wage and hour case, plaintiff Israel Castaneda prevailed at trial. Plaintiff sought $29,605 in attorneys fees. The trial court awarded the amount of $16,964. On appeal, plaintiff contends that the amount of attorneys fees awarded was arbitrary and must be reversed. We disagree and affirm the judgment.[1]

FACTS

Plaintiff filed his complaint against defendant containing causes of action for unlawful nonpayment of overtime compensation, failure to pay minimum wage by failing to compensate for all overtime hours worked, failure to maintain adequate records, failure to provide required rest and meal periods, failure to pay earned wages upon discharge and unfair business practices.

Plaintiff prevailed at trial and recovered $25,450 in damages. As part of the judgment, the trial court found that defendant had violated Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a), by failing to pay plaintiff overtime pay, and section 226, subdivision (a), by failing to maintain proper records. Labor Code section 1194, subdivision (a), provides: Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving less than . . . the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this . . . overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorneys fees, and costs of suit.

In plaintiff motion for attorneys fees, he sought the sum of $29,605.00, computed as follows:

Attorney Billing Rate Hours Billed Lodestar

Stephen Glick $500.00 28.84 $14,420.00

Stephen Glick $450.00 7.38 $3,321.00

Lorena Garcia $250.00 34.84 $8,710.00

Lorena Garcia $200.00 15.77$3,154.00

Total 86.83 $29,605.00

In fixing the amount of attorneys fees to be awarded, the trial court expressly stated that the hours spent by plaintiffs counsel were reasonable. It then added: With regards to fees, the amount of $500 an hour, I know Glick has worked for a long time and he may charge that but I dont think that this court can give him $500 per hour. Its an unreasonable premium rate, with all due respect, as counsel loves to say to the court, to his experience. I think that 86 hours86.83 hours is reasonable. And even if I adjust his rate to like 375 an hour, it comes up with attorneys fees figures of $25,466.50. And I cant imagine where there is a recovery of $25,000 that Glick would have requestedexcuse me, that you would have requested an amount thats either more than or greater than the amount of the recovery in this case. [] And I think what Im going to do is grant a figure thats 1/3 less than that. So Im going to grant attorneys fees in the amount of $16,964.

DISCUSSION

In fixing attorneys fees, the court ordinarily begins with the lodestar, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys fee award. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The court may then adjust the lodestar figure based upon factors specific to the case before it, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (Id. at p. 1096.)

The trial court has wide discretion in fixing any award of attorneys fees, and the award will be reversed only when there is an abuse of discretion. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1095.) The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrongmeaning that it has abused its discretion. (Ibid.)

It is well established that attorneys fee awards are not limited by the amount of damages recovered in the case. (See, e.g., Riverside v. Rivera (1986) 477 U.S. 561 [$33,350 recovery and $245,456.25 attorneys fee award in a 42 U.S.C.  1988 case involving police brutality]; Vo v. Las Virgenes Municipal Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440 [$37,500 recovery and $470,000 attorneys fee award].) As stated above, however, the amount of damages awarded may be considered, as well as the other circumstances in the case. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1096; see also Vo, supra, at pp. 446-447.)

Here, it is clear that the trial court considered the relevant factors before making its award: the time spent on the case, the amount of the recovery, and the value of the attorneys services. We cannot say the award was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd in light of the relevant factors. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial courts reduction of the lodestar figure to an amount it found appropriate under the circumstances. (People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 71; Ohton v. Board of Trustees of CaliforniaStateUniversity (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 749, 766.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

JACKSON, J.*

We concur:

VOGEL, Acting P. J.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.

Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] Plaintiff purports to appeal from both the judgment, which includes the award of attorneys fees, and the interlocutory order awarding attorneys fees. That order is not appealable but is reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. (Code Civ. Proc.,  904.1, subd. (a)(1); see P R Burke Corp. v. Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1047.)

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.