Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00180/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00180-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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 JOSE DIVISION

ADAM VILLARREAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIRCOM MECHANICAL, INC.; SCOTT 

GOLDBERG; and DANIEL MUNIER,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-00180 HRL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

AND COSTS

[Re: Dkt. 64]

Adam Villarreal brought this wage-and-hour suit, alleging violations of federal and state 

labor laws and asserting seven claims for relief. Essentially, the first two claims were based on 

defendants’ alleged failure to pay him for overtime work. The other five claims sought waiting 

time and other penalties and alleged that defendants did not provide Villarreal with accurate wage 

statements or with meal and rest periods (or compensation in lieu thereof). The parties later 

stipulated to the dismissal of the rest period claim, without waiver of costs.

The matter proceeded to a bench trial, with Villarreal claiming wages and penalties in the 

amount of $22,936.00, and the court subsequently issued its Memorandum of Decision, Findings 

of Fact and Conclusions of Law. On Villarreal’s first two claims for relief, the court found that, 

due to two inadvertent calculation errors by the payroll officer---neither of which were discovered 

by Villarreal or defendants until the instant case was filed---Villarreal was underpaid $16 for 

overtime work. That Villarreal was owed that amount was undisputed. He was awarded $8 in 

Case 5:13-cv-00180-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 7
2

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

liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The court 

otherwise found that Villarreal did not prove that he worked more hours than those reflected on his 

time logs. And, the court concluded that defendants were not liable on any of the other claims for 

relief. The net result: Villarreal obtained a judgment in the amount of $24.

The parties were directed to jointly submit a proposed judgment. And, the court 

subsequently entered a proposed judgment that Villarreal is the prevailing party as to the first two 

claims for relief and that defendants are the prevailing parties on the remaining claims.

Villarreal now moves for $15,000 in attorney’s fees and $452.50 in costs. Defendants 

oppose the motion. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, and the arguments 

of counsel, this court will grant the motion, but for a lesser amount than requested.

LEGAL STANDARD

Whether calculating attorney’s fees under California or federal law, courts follow the 

lodestar approach. “The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee 

is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly 

rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), abrogated 

on other grounds by Tex. State Teachers Ass’n. v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 109 

S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989). The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence 

supporting the hours worked and rates claimed. Id.

“In determining a reasonable hourly rate, the district court should be guided by the rate 

prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, 

experience, and reputation.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 

1986), reh’g denied, amended on other grounds, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Blum v. 

Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984)). “Generally, the 

relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits.” Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 

500 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1488 (9th Cir. 1991)). The fee 

applicant has the burden of producing evidence, other than declarations of interested counsel, 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 896 n.11. 

Case 5:13-cv-00180-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 7
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“The party opposing the fee application has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of 

evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or 

the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 

F.2d 1392, 1397-98 (9th Cir. 1993). In determining a reasonable fee, the court may take into 

account: (1) the novelty and complexity of the issues; (2) the special skill and experience of 

counsel; (3) the quality of representation; and (4) the results obtained. Chalmers, 796 F.2d at 

1212.

DISCUSSION

Defendants’ sole contention in opposition to Villarreal’s request for fees and costs is that, 

given his very limited recovery, no award should be made at all. They rely on Farrar v. Hobby, 

506 U.S. 103 (1992), in which the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who obtains even nominal 

damages is a “prevailing party,” but that “[w]hen a plaintiff recovers only nominal damages 

because of his failure to prove an essential element of his claim for monetary relief, the only 

reasonable fee is usually no fee at all.” Id. at 115 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

However, Farrar and other cases defendants cite, are civil rights suits filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. In such actions, an award of fees to the prevailing party is discretionary. 42 U.S.C. §

1988(b). By contrast, in cases such as the present one, the FLSA and California law provide that

an award of fees and costs to a prevailing party is mandatory. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Cal. Labor 

Code § 1194(a). Defendants have not cited any authority indicating that this court has discretion 

to decline to award fees and costs entirely.

Even so, the court does have discretion to determine the reasonableness of any fees to be 

awarded. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. Where, as here, “a plaintiff has achieved only partial or 

limited success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a 

reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount.” Id. at 436. “This will be true even where 

the plaintiff’s claims were interrelated, nonfrivolous, and raised in good faith.” Id. As always, 

“the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained.” Id. “There is no precise rule or 

formula for making these determinations.” Id. “The district court may attempt to identify specific 

hours that should be eliminated, or it may simply reduce the award to account for the limited 

Case 5:13-cv-00180-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/01/15 Page 3 of 7
4

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

success.” Id. at 436-37. The Ninth Circuit, however, has held that, rather than adjust the lodestar

figure to account for limited success, the better approach is to adjust the hourly rate or the 

calculation of hours claimed. See Corder v. Gates, 947 F.2d 374, 378 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Since 

consideration of limited success is presumably subsumed within the initial calculation of hours 

reasonably expended at a reasonable hourly rate, district courts should not ordinarily make a 

separate adjustment [to the lodestar figure] for limited success.”) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted).

Where a party is only partially successful on his claims, determining an appropriate fee

award requires courts to apply a two-part analysis: First, are the unsuccessful and successful 

claims unrelated? If so, the fee award may not include time spent on the unsuccessful claims. 

Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 802 F.2d 1131, 1141 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 

434-35)). But, if the unsuccessful and successful claims are related, then the court moves to the 

second part of the analysis and “evaluates the ‘significance of the overall relief obtained by the 

plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on the litigation.’” Id. (quoting Hensley, 461 

U.S. at 435). Although “[t]he test for relatedness of claims is not precise . . . related claims will 

involve ‘a common core of facts’ or will be based on related legal theories, while unrelated claims 

will be ‘distinctly different,’ and based on different facts and legal theories.” Id. (quoting 

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434).

This court finds that Villarreal’s successful and unsuccessful claims are related for 

purposes of the Hensley analysis. All arose from a common core of facts and concerned 

defendants’ alleged failure to comply with laws governing plaintiff’s compensation and records of 

the same.

Acknowledging that his limited recovery must be taken into account, Villarreal’s attorneys

point out that they are asking for only $15,000 (when they say that they actually billed closer to 

$40,000). But, the time to be compensated in any award must still be “reasonable in relation to the 

success achieved.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436. A $15,000 fee award---i.e, 625 times greater than 

the $24 judgment---is grossly out of proportion to the extremely limited relief Villarreal obtained. 

Indeed, Villarreal was largely unsuccessful on his claims for overtime, having failed to establish 

Case 5:13-cv-00180-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/01/15 Page 4 of 7
5

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

that he worked more than the hours reflected on his time logs. The $24 judgment is based, not on 

any willful failure by defendants to properly compensate plaintiff, but upon two inadvertent math 

errors that no one (including Villarreal) was aware of until this suit was filed. And, the recovery 

obtained was entirely incidental to the relief he actually sought.

At the same time, however, Villarreal points out that he informed defendants of the payroll 

errors well before trial. There being no dispute that Villarreal was owed that money, defendants 

have not satisfactorily explained why they did not simply tender that sum. Defendants say that 

they made a nuisance value settlement demand that far exceeded the $24 Villarreal ultimately 

recovered. But, the court is unpersuaded that a nuisance value settlement demand, with various 

conditions attached, is the equivalent of a tender.

Villarreal’s two attorneys, Tomas Margain and Huy Tran, claim hourly rates of $425 and 

$225, respectively. (Margain Decl. ¶ 2; Tran Decl., ¶ 26).1 Margain has eighteen years of 

experience. (Margain Decl. ¶ 4). Tran has been practicing law since 2012 and performed the 

identified tasks as a first- or second-year associate. (Tran Decl. ¶ 28). Although courts have 

questioned whether the Laffey Matrix reflects rates in this district, Margain correctly notes that his 

and Tran’s claimed rates are below those in the Laffey Matrix for 2014-2015. Margain and Tran 

each provide declarations containing detailed descriptions of their experience and training. They 

also point to a fee award obtained in at least one other wage-and-hour case in this district 

(spanning roughly the same period as the instant action) based on these same rates. In view of this 

evidence, the court finds that the claimed hourly rates are reasonable.

As for the time to be compensated, at the motion hearing defendants argued that the court 

should order a nominal award of $1. However, the court concludes that the fees to be awarded are 

more appropriately based on the time spent discovering the two inadvertent payroll math errors. 

At the motion hearing, Margain stated that he discovered those errors while reviewing the time 

loss while Villarreal for deposition. Although not detailed in the submitted attorney time sheets, 

Margain said that it took no more than five minutes each to spot the errors in question. 

 1 Although Margain states that Tran is claiming an hourly rate of $250, Tran’s declaration 

indicates that at the time he performed the identified tasks, his billing rate was $225/hour.

Case 5:13-cv-00180-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/01/15 Page 5 of 7
6

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

Accordingly, the court will award fees for ten minutes of Margain’s time in the amount of $70.83.

As for Villarreal’s requested costs, he seeks $350.00 for the court’s filing fee and $102.50 

for fees for service of process. Defendants contend that no costs should be awarded due to 

Villarreal’s limited success, but failed to cite cogent supporting authority. At oral argument, 

defendants acknowledged that the matter could have been better briefed. So, the court gave them

an opportunity to further brief the issue and also gave plaintiff an opportunity to file a 

supplemental responsive brief if he wished. Defendants subsequently advised that they would not 

be filing any supplemental briefing. Accordingly, finding the requested costs to be reasonable and 

appropriate, Villarreal is awarded $452.50 in litigation costs.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court awards Villarreal attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$70.83 and costs in the amount of $452.50.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2015

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-00180-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/01/15 Page 6 of 7
7

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

5:13-cv-00180-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Huy Ngoc Tran huy@jawlawgroup.com, brisa@jawlawgroup.com, oriana@jawlawgroup.com, 

tomas@jawlawgroup.com

Thomas Blaine Sheridan tsheridan@sheridanclark.com, msheridan@sheridanclark.com

Tomas Eduardo Margain Tomas@jawlawgroup.com, brisa@jawlawgroup.com, 

huy@jawlawgroup.com, margainlaw@hotmail.com, oriana@jawlawgroup.com, 

phung@jawlawgroup.com

Case 5:13-cv-00180-HRL Document 70 Filed 06/01/15 Page 7 of 7