Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00460/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00460-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO MEDINA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 12cv0460 JM(MDD)

 13cv1891 JM(MDD)

 13cv1892 JM(MDD) 

ORDER AWARDING

SUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEYS’

FEES 

v.

METROPOLITAN INTERPRETERS

AND TRANSLATORS, INC.,

Defendant.

Plaintiffs move for a supplemental award of attorneys’ fees. Defendant

Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc. (“Metropolitan”) partially opposes the

motion. The court incorporates its October 19, 2015 order awarding attorneys’ fees

and costs to Plaintiffs. (Ct. Dkt. 338).

Plaintiffs seek compensation for the attorney hours reasonably expended by

Plaintiffs’ counsel in opposing Metropolitan’s motionsfor judgment as a matter of law

and for new trial and presenting their own requests for an award of attorneys’ fees. 

Plaintiffs seek to be compensated in the amount of $47,203. The court finds both the

hourly rate and the hours expended (with one minor adjustment, as noted below)

reasonable under the circumstances and awards Plaintiffs attorneys’ feesin the amount

of $46,849.

1

The court notes that Plaintiffs do not seek compensation for any additional 1

costs, paralegal time, or time spent on communicating with Plaintiffs. 

- 1 - 12cv0460

Case 3:12-cv-00460-JM-MDD Document 358 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 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

Metropolitan objects to both the hourly rate and the hours expended. With

respect to the hourly rate, the court notes Metropolitan’s previous non-opposition to

the hourly rates is the law of the case. “A court may depart from the law of the case

when (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) an intervening change in the law

has occurred; (3) the evidence on remand is substantially different; (4) other changed

circumstances exist; or (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result.” Mendenhall

v. National Transportation Safety Board, 213 F.3d 464, 469 (9th Cir. 2000). Here,

Metropolitan identifies no grounds to depart from the previously determined hourly

rates.

Except as noted below, the court also finds the total hours expended reasonable

under the circumstances. Counsel have submitted detailed time sheets identifying the

tasks performed and the time spent on each task. (Ct. Dkt. 351-3). The tasks primarily

relate to responding to Metropolitan’s substantial post-trial motions and their requests

for attorneys’ fees. However, as noted by Metropolitan, attorney Grace Jun performed

paralegal and secretarial activities not compensable as attorney time. On August 11,

2015, attorney Jun billed 0.7 hours for e-filing a corrected reply brief. This time is not

compensable as attorney time. On September 4, 2015, attorney Jun billed 10 hours for

compensable tasks (finalizing opposition to motion for new trial, drafted sections ofthe

brief on judicial estoppel, emotion distress damages, and causation). However, within

the 10 hours she also billed for creating a table of contents and e-filing the documents. 

These two tasks, however brief, are not compensable as attorney time. The court

deducts 0.5 hours from the 10 hours for these two tasks. Accordingly, the court

reduces the award by $354 (1.2 hours times $295/hour).

In sum, the court awards supplemental attorneys’ feesin the amount of $46,849.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 15, 2016

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv0460

Case 3:12-cv-00460-JM-MDD Document 358 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2