Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01325/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01325-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cruz Young, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Columbia Sussex Corp., doing business as

the Phoenix Airport Marriot Hotel, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-01325-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff Cruz Young’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees

(doc. 99), defendant Columbia Sussex Corp.’s response (doc. 116), and plaintiff’s reply (doc.

119).

After a trial in January 2010, plaintiff obtained a $45,000.00 judgment against

defendant on a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. As the prevailing party, plaintiff moves for an award of

reasonable attorney’s fees, which we may allow “as part of the costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e5(k).

Plaintiff requests $85,820.00 in fees for 245.2 hours of work at $350 an hour.

Defendant does not contest the reasonableness of the hourly rate. It does object to the time

plaintiff’s counsel spent meeting with two former defendant employees and plaintiff. First,

Case 2:08-cv-01325-FJM Document 122 Filed 07/23/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

defendant contends that counsel violated Rule 4.2 of the Arizona Rules of Professional

Conduct by communicating with a person “whose act or omission in connection with the

matter may be imputed to the organization” for purposes of liability. Lang v. Superior Court,

170 Ariz. 602, 604-05, 826 P.2d 1228, 1230-31 (Ct. App. 1992); see also LRCiv 83.2(e)

(incorporating the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct). However, defendant fails to

show that the employee's acts or omissions could have been imputed to it. Second, defendant

asserts that the occurrence of several meetings is inconsistent with the testimony of another

employee and plaintiff. But they testified a year and a half after the fact, and the record

excerpts that defendant offers are inconclusive. We reject defendant’s objections to

counsel’s meetings. Defendant’s additional objections concerning the detail of billing

records and time spent traveling and preparing exhibits are similarly unpersuasive.

Next, defendant contends that any award of attorney’s fees should be adjusted because

plaintiff’s success was limited. We granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on

retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (doc. 44), and the jury found in

defendant’s favor on a § 1981 hostile work environment claim. Taking the related nature of

plaintiff’s claims and her level of success into consideration, see Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d

1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2003), we conclude that an adjustment is not warranted. See Cabrales

v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[E]ven if a specific claim

fails, the time spent on that claim may be compensable, in full or in part, if it contributes to

the success of other claims.”).

Finally, defendant asserts that plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees

that reflects costs incurred after defendant made an unaccepted offer of judgment because

the judgment she obtained was not more favorable. See Rule 68(d), Fed. R. Civ. P. For

purposes of an offer of judgment under Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. P., the relevant costs include

attorney’s fees where, as here, the underlying statute defines attorney’s fees “as a part of the

costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 9, 105 S. Ct. 3012, 3016

(1985). On December 28, 2009, defendant offered plaintiff $100,001.00, inclusive of all

damages, attorney’s fees, and taxable costs (doc. 103). At that point, plaintiff had incurred

Case 2:08-cv-01325-FJM Document 122 Filed 07/23/10 Page 2 of 3
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

1

 This amount reflects $4,274.40 in costs taxed by the clerk, reduced by $860.00 in

post-offer interpreter and service fees (doc. 107).

- 3 -

$57,050.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees (163 hours at $350 an hour), and $3,414.40 in

taxable costs.1

 Because the comparable amount, around $105,500.00, is more than defendant

offered, Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. P, does not affect plaintiff’s entitlement to an award of

attorney’s fees.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion for an award of

attorney’s fees in the amount of $85,820.00 (doc. 99).

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01325-FJM Document 122 Filed 07/23/10 Page 3 of 3