Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00246/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00246-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:1801 Farmworker Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

REY CARTAS VELASQUEZ, ISAIAS

GARCIA MATIAS, AUSENCIO DE LA

RODAS, DANIEL FILADELFO PEREZ

ORDONEZ, VICTOR JIMENEZ

HERNANDEZ, ELOY GOMEZ JIMENEZ,

MODESTO GOMEZ JIMENEZ,

BONIFACIO JIMENEZ JIMENEZ,

BARTOLO LOPEZ JIMENEZ,

CATALINO JIMENEZ LOPEZ,

CELESTINO JIMENEZ HERNANDEZ,

NIRMAL CHAND, EDGAR CARASCO DE

LOS SANTOS, DAVID CRUZ

GUTIERREZ and AMABILIO SANTISO

MORALES, individuals, Acting

for Their Own and For the

Interests of the General

Public,

NO. CIV. S 01-0246 MCE DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES

AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

MOHAMMED KHAN, aka MOHAMMED

NAWAZ KHAN, aka MOHAMMAD KHAN

an Individual dba KHAN LABOR

CONTRACTOR; HARBANS BATH;

BALWINDER K. BRAR, RASHPAL S.

PANU, HARBANS K. PANU; and

RAMINDER K. BAINS, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

After all appearing defendants in this action, except for

Defendant Harbans Bath, either settled or agreed to a stipulated

judgment, the case proceeded to a court trial against

Defendant Bath on June 20, 2005. No appearance was made on

behalf of Defendant Bath at trial, and pursuant to Findings

and Fact and Conclusions of Law filed July 11, 2005,

judgment against Bath in the amount of $52,923.23 was

rendered in favor of Plaintiffs Victor Jimenez Hernandez,

Eloy Gomez Jimenez, Modesto Gomez Jimenez, Bonifacio

Jimenez, Celestino Jimenez Hernandez, and Rey Cartas

Velasquez (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs now move for

attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses against Bath

pursuant to California Labor Code §§ 218.5 and 1194(a), as

well as California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. That

motion has not been opposed.

Although the above-enumerated statutes do

unquestionably entitle Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party

in this litigation, to attorneys’ fees, the amount of those

fees is limited by the cited California Labor Code sections

to a “reasonable” amount. Further, under Code of Civil

Procedure § 1021.5, California’s private attorney general

statute, the court has broad discretion to determine the

amount of a reasonable fee award. See In re Gorina, 296

B.R. 23 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Gregory v. State Bd. Of Control,

73 Cal. App. 4th 584 (1999).

To determine a reasonable fee award, courts typically use

the “lodestar” method for calculating attorney’s fees. Under the

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

lodestar method, a court multiplies the number of hours the

prevailing attorneys reasonably expended on the litigation by a

reasonable hourly rate. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,

433, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983); see also

Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1132, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377,

384 (2001)(expressly approving the use of prevailing hourly rates

as a basis for the lodestar). Courts may then adjust the

lodestar to reflect other particular aspects of a case. See Kerr

v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975);

see also Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 141 Cal. Rptr. 315

(1977). When deciding whether to adjust the lodestar, courts

often use the following twelve factors:

(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and

difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill

requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the

preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to

acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether

the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed

by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved

and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation,

and ability of the attorneys, (10) the 'undesirability' of

the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional

relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar

cases.

Kerr, 526 F.2d at 69-70.

In calculating the initial lodestar figure, the Court

first turns to the number of hours billed. Because this

motion is unopposed, and because Plaintiffs’ counsel has

submitted detailed documentation to support the hours

billed, the Court accepts the hours claimed, which include

560.7 hours of attorney time and another 471.25 hours in

staff time. That does not end the inquiry, because the

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Court must next address the reasonableness of the claimed

hourly rate, which is at two different levels for the five

attorneys who participated in this case on behalf of

Plaintiffs, and which also includes a separate rate for

paralegal/law clerk hours expended.

Courts generally calculate reasonable hourly rates according

to the prevailing market rates in the relevant legal community. 

Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d

891 (1984). The general rule is that courts use the rates of

attorneys practicing in the forum district, here, the Eastern

District of California located in Sacramento, California. Gates

v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9 Cir. 1993); Davis v. th

Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1488 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,

502 U.S. 899, 112 S. Ct. 275, 116 L. Ed. 2d 227 (1991). 

The burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory

evidence that the requested rates are “in line with those

prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of

reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” Blum,

465 U.S. at 895 n.11. A court will normally deem a rate

determined in this way to be reasonable. Id.

The rate claimed by Plaintiffs for hours charged by

attorney Mark Talamantes, who has eight years’ experience

representing low-income and immigrant workers (Plaintiffs’ 

Points and Authorities, 3:21-23) is $350/hour. An hourly

rate of $350 is also sought for Julia Montgomery, who has

experience similar to that of Mr. Talamantes. $250/hour is

requested for the other three attorneys who participated in

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 4 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As far as can be ascertained from Plaintiffs’ papers, all 1

of the attorneys and staff who worked on this case on Plaintiffs’

behalf, including Mr. Talamantes, are affiliated with the

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, whose offices are

here in Sacramento.

While Plaintiffs do submit a lengthy declaration from 2

Richard Pearl, a sole practitioner in the San Francisco Bay Area,

he cites no fee awards arising within the Eastern District

further does not identify any law firm hourly rates as stemming

from the Sacramento region. While Mr. Pearl claims generally to

“have some familiarity with Sacramento rates”, and goes on to

conclude that the rates claimed here “seem to be within the range

(continued...)

5

this case on behalf of Plaintiffs (Jennifer Ambacher, Daniel

Torres and Jennifer Reisch), although all three of those

individuals have been lawyers for less than three years. 

Finally, time spent by paralegal Juanita Ontiveros and law

clerk Luis Alejo, which has also been deemed compensable

(see Guinn v. Dotson, 23 Cal. App. 4 262, 267-70 (1994)) th

is claimed at a rate of $100/hour. 

In support of the rates claimed, Plaintiffs have

submitted several declarations. In his declaration,

Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Talamantes identifies two out-of- 1

district cases as a result of which he was awarded fees at

the rate here requested of $350/hour. Because fees should

be awarded based on the prevailing rates in this district,

however (Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1405), any rates awarded by

the Central or Northern Districts of California are not

germane to a fee entitlement here in the Eastern District of

California.

Aside from the Talamantes Declaration, the only other

Declaration submitted by a Sacramento attorney is from 2

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 5 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(...continued) 2

of rates charged for comparable work by comparably qualified

Sacramento attorneys”, he otherwise provides no evidence in

support of those propositions.

With respect to Mark Talamantes, the actual time documented 3

is for 444.7 hours rather than 445, as requested in Plaintiffs’

Memorandum of Points and Authorities. The reimbursement amount

has been adjusted to reflect that time discrepancy.

6

Jason Rabinowitz. Mr. Rabinowitz, whose eight years of

experience is similar to that of Mr. Talamantes, states that

his current billing rate for individual employment cases is

$300/hour. (Rabinowitz Decl., ¶ 8). He goes on to state

that billing rates at his firm for such work range from $250

to $350 per hour, and believes that market rates in

Sacramento range from $250 to $375 per hour for attorney

time. In addition, while Rabinowitz claims that paralegal

rates range between $95.00 and $110.00, he states nothing

about compensable rates for a student law clerk like Mr.

Alejo.

On the basis of the Rabinowitz Declaration, Plaintiffs

have not established entitlement to attorneys’ fees in

excess of $300/hour for time expended by either Mark

Talamantes or Julia Montgomery. In addition, because the

Court’s own experience leads it to conclude that compensable

rates for that work should not exceed $300/hour in this

district, Plaintiffs’ fee recovery shall be limited

accordingly. Moreover, given the fact that the other 3

three attorneys working on this case (Daniel Torres,

Jennifer Reisch and Jennifer Ambacher) all have been

practicing lawyers for less than three years, the Court

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 6 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

First, Plaintiffs’ Points and Authorities refer to 57.4 4

hours spent by Ms. Ambacher at a claimed rate of $250/hour. That

computation does not yield the total amount sought for Ambacher

(at $10,292.50). Examination of Ms. Ambacher’s time records, as

attached to the Declaration of Julia Montgomery, in fact refer to

some of the claimed time billed at $100/hour. The Montgomery

Declaration, at ¶ 9, states that Ms. Ambacher began working for

the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in September of

2004, and did not become licensed as an attorney until February

of 2005. The Court cannot determine absent conjecture in what

capacity Ms. Ambacher worked on this case before February of

2005. In addition, although the Montgomery Declaration refers to

Ms. Ambacher’s admission to the bar in February of 2005, at least

one of the entries billed at a lower rate is from that time

period. Finally, no explanation is provided as to why Ms.

Ambacher’s bar admission occurred in February of 2005 which is

outside the customary time parameters for bar admission. For all

these reasons, there are too many unresolved issues with respect

to Ms. Ambacher to allow recovery for her time at this juncture.

7

believes that the amount requested by Plaintiffs for their

services, at $250/hour, is excessive. $200/hour will

instead be allowed as to both Mr. Torres and Mr. Reisch. 

The claim for Jennifer Ambacher’s fees is denied at this

time, without prejudice, because the documentation to

support that claim is insufficient.4

With respect to compensation for legal staff

expenditures, Juanita Ontiveros’ paralegal services at the

rate of $100/hour are awarded as requested. Plaintiffs have

presented no evidence to support an allowable rate of

$100/hour for time expended by a student law clerk (Luis

Alejo), however, and compensation for that time will be

established at $50/hour.

Multiplying the hourly rates permitted by the court by

the total time expended by Plaintiffs’ attorneys and office

staff yields a total lodestar figure of $192,555.00.

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 7 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Plaintiffs next asks this Court to apply a 1.2 multiplier to

the lodestar figure under FEHA. To the extent that a party seeks

a fee enhancement, it bears the burden of proof. Ketchum v.

Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1138, 104 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377 (2001). 

Nothing requires a trial court to include a fee enhancement to

the basic lodestar figure for contingent risk, exceptional skill,

or other factors. See id. Courts simply retain the discretion

to do so in the appropriate case. See id.

Plaintiffs’ argument in support of a fee enhancement in this

case is limited to the claim that the California Rural Legal

Assistance Foundation, as a non-profit organization with limited

resources, took a risk in litigating this case. While that may

be true, in the view of this Court nothing otherwise about the

case was particularly novel, difficult or complex. Consequently

the Court declines to enhance the lodestar amount (as enumerated

above) through the multiplier advocated by Plaintiffs.

In addition to attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs also request

reimbursement for certain expenses in addition to their

statutorily recoverable costs. Such expenses may be recouped to

the extent they “would normally be charged to a paying client.” 

Harris v. Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16, 19 (9 Cir. 1994). The Court th

concludes that the costs claimed herein ($2,249.12) are

reasonable and will be awarded.

In sum, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for

//

//

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 8 of 9
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 5

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

9

attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses is GRANTED, in part.5

Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney’s fees are $192,555.00 and their

reasonable litigation expenses (in addition to any costs

recoverable by statute) are $2,249.12. Those amounts, which

total $194,804.12, shall be paid by Defendant Harbans Bath. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 28, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:01-cv-00246-MCE-DAD Document 197 Filed 09/28/05 Page 9 of 9