Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04029/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04029-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-04029-LB) 

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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

JANE DOE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DAVID KUO HUEI LEE, 

Defendant. 

INTRODUCTION 

The plaintiff (proceeding pseudonymously as Jane Doe) filed this lawsuit on August 29, 2013. 

(Complaint, ECF No. 1.1

) The case settled pursuant to an agreement that provides for attorney’s 

fees. (ECF No. 81.) The issue is the amount of fees. The court awards $35,000. 

STATEMENT

The parties had a mediation session on June 3, 2015 through the court’s ADR program; at its 

conclusion, the court-appointed mediator filed a Certificate of ADR Session that reflects a full 

settlement, the signing of an “MOU” (meaning, memorandum of understanding), and the parties’ 

“finalizing the settlement agmt.” (ECF No. 66.) The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion to enforce 

 

1

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to 

the ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of the documents. 

Case No. 3:13-cv-04029-LB 

ORDER REGARDING 

ATTORNEY’S FEES 

Case 3:13-cv-04029-LB Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-04029-LB) 

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 

Northern District of California 

the memorandum of understanding. (Motion, ECF No. 69.) Ultimately, at a hearing on August 20, 

2015, the parties resolved their disagreements and filed their settlement agreement, which was a 

marked-up and signed version of their MOU. (See ECF Nos. 80, 81, and 82.) It provides for 

payment of the following: “Defendant shall pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees actually incurred in this 

Case (approximately $30,000) from August 2013 through entry of the permanent injunction.” 

(ECF No. 81 at 8(b).) 

At the hearing, the court agreed to review the plaintiff’s counsel’s fees because the defendant 

“want[ed] him to prove it up.” (RT 9/4/15 at 22:7.) (The hearing is on the court’s FTR system; the 

court reviewed it to fill in what is marked “inaudible” on the transcript.) The gist of the agreement 

is that the court would review the plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records to be sure that they 

supported the fees request and established “reasonable” fees. At the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel 

noted that the $30,000 was only an approximation. (See id. at 18-21.) The discussion was that the 

fees were now $35,000. (See id. at 18.) And the declaration submitted in support of the motion to 

enforce the MOU referred to fees of $35,000, broken down as $33,500 in fees actually incurred 

through the filing date plus an allocation of $1,500 for review of the opposition to the motion to 

enforce. (7/2/2015 Gold Decl., ECF No. 69, ¶ 8; see also 9/2/2015 Gold Decl., ECF No. 85, ¶ 5.) 

Thereafter, as the parties agreed at the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted his billing 

records and asked for $50,690 in fees actually incurred. (9/2/2015 Gold Decl., ECF No. 85.) The 

amount is based on a $300 hourly rate, which is substantially lower than counsel’s regular billing 

rate. (Id. ¶ 9.) A small amount of time is attributable to a contract attorney at a billing rate of $200. 

(Id.) The declaration describes their experiences as lawyers. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) The declaration 

(supported by actual billing records and a spreadsheet summarizing them by category) establishes 

a total of 162.1 hours for the plaintiff’s counsel and 4.3 hours for the contract attorney. (ECF 85-1 

at 3.) The defendant opposed the fees, arguing that the court should award $10,900 in fees. 

(Opposition, ECF No. 88.) The plaintiff’s counsel then filed a responsive declaration. (9/24/2015 

Gold Decl., ECF No. 90.) On October 8, 2015, the court held a second hearing. (See ECF No. 92.) 

There, the plaintiff’s counsel agreed to limit his fees request to $35,000. (See Digital FTR 

Recording: 3:56-4:06.) 

Case 3:13-cv-04029-LB Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

ORDER (No. 3:13-cv-04029-LB) 

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 

Northern District of California 

ANALYSIS

To determine a reasonable attorney’s fee award, courts use the lodestar method. Grove v. Wells 

Fargo Financial Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010). The court calculates a lodestar 

amount by multiplying the number of hours counsel reasonably spent on the litigation by a 

reasonable hourly rate. Id. 

1. Reasonable Hourly Rate 

A reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work performed by 

attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 

1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008); Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The relevant community is the “forum in which the district court sits,” which here is the Northern 

District of California. Id. The party requesting fees must produce satisfactory evidence – in 

addition to the attorney’s own affidavits or declarations – showing the rates are in line with 

community rates. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984); Jordan v. Multomah 

County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987). In establishing the reasonably hourly rate, the court 

may take into account: (1) the novelty and complexity of the issues; (2) the special skill and 

experiences of counsel; (3) the quality of representation; and (4) the results obtained. See Cabrales 

v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 864 F.2d 1454, 1464 (9th Cir. 1988). 

The court’s own experience is that the billing rates are lower than the prevailing market rate in 

the relevant community in similar cases. Indeed, the plaintiff’s counsel said that he agreed to the 

lower rate out of sympathy for his client. (Gold Decl., ECF No. 85, ¶ 9.) The court finds the billing 

rates of the plaintiff’s counsel and the contract attorney to be reasonable, given their experience 

and the prevailing market rate in the relevant community. 

2. Reasonable Hours Expended 

Reasonable hours expended on a case are hours that are not “‘excessive, redundant, or 

otherwise unnecessary.’” McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). The party requesting fees must provide 

detailed time records documenting the task completed and the time spent. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 

434; McCown, 565 F.3d at 1102; Welch, 480 F.3d at 945-46. 

Case 3:13-cv-04029-LB Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

OR

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 

dec

Th

and

par

app

par

set

3. P

sub

par

the

Ab

$35

sim

par

lbp

RDER (No. 3

The court r

claration and

e court finds

d necessary f

rties’ origina

pear at a noti

rties agreed t

tlement on t

Proposed Ju

The last iss

bmitted a pro

rties’ settlem

e form of jud

bsent an obje

The court o

5,000. Pursu

mple interest 

The parties

rties must ef

po@cand.usc

IT IS SO O

Dated: Nov

3:13-cv-0402

reviewed the

d supported b

s the request

for its prosec

al MOU. The

iced hearing

to this court

he record on

udgment 

sue is the pro

oposed judgm

ment agreeme

dgment and i

ection, the co

orders that th

uant to the te

at the rate o

s must raise a

file any revis

courts.gov. 

ORDERED.

vember 3, 20

29-LB) 

e total hours 

by the billin

ted $35,000 t

cution. The 

e events sinc

g) support the

’s review of

n August 20,

oposed judgm

ment and inj

ent. The part

injunction by

ourt will ente

he amount to

erms of the M

of inflation. (

any objectio

sion and then

.

015 

spent for tas

g records. (S

to be reason

court notes t

ce then (inclu

e additional 

f and decision

, 2015 (with 

ment and per

junction. (Se

ties must con

y a joint stat

er ECF No. 6

CONCLU

o be paid und

MOU, it is pa

(ECF No. 81

ns to ECF N

n email a wo

_____

LAUR

Unite

sks summari

See Gold De

nable, in line 

that it is clos

uding the de

$5,000. The

n regarding

the undersig

rmanent inju

ee ECF No. 6

nfer and rais

tement filed 

69-2 on Nov

USION 

der the terms

ayable in equ

1 at 5.) 

No. 69-2 no l

ord version to

__________

REL BEELE

ed States Ma

ized in the pl

ecl., ECF No

 with the tim

se to the $30

efendant’s co

e court also e

the fees as p

gned’s assist

unction. The

69-2.) It is c

se any issues

no later than

vember 12, 2

s of the settl

ual installme

later than No

o the court’s

___________

ER 

agistrate Judg

laintiff’s cou

o. 85, ¶ 9.) 

meline of this

0,000 that wa

ounsel’s failu

emphasizes t

part of their p

tance). 

e plaintiff’s c

consistent wi

s with the co

n November 

2015. 

lement agree

ents over 10

ovember 10,

s orders box 

__________

ge 

4

unsel’s 

s lawsuit, 

as in the 

ure to 

that the 

placing their

counsel 

ith the 

ourt about 

10, 2015. 

ement is 

0 years, with 

 2015. The 

at 

______ 

4

r

Case 3:13-cv-04029-LB Document 93 Filed 11/03/15 Page 4 of 4