Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02358/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02358-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:160(1) National Labor Relations 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cornele A. Overstreet, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Farm Fresh Company Target One LLC, 

Respondent.

No. CV-13-02358-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 The Court previously ruled that Respondent is entitled to a partial award of attorney 

fees and ordered submission of a new fee request in accordance with that ruling. Doc. 54. 

Respondent filed the Amended Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 55) and Petitioner filed a 

Response in opposition (Doc. 56). 

 The court must calculate a reasonable fee award using a two-step process: “First, 

the court must calculate the ‘lodestar figure’ by taking the number of hours reasonably 

expended on the litigation and multiplying it by a reasonable hourly rate.” Fischer v. 

SJB–P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.2000) (citations and footnote omitted). 

Second, the court must consider whether the lodestar figure should be adjusted pursuant 

to additional factors that were not considered in the initial calculation. Moreno v. City of 

Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008). The additional factors to consider are: 

(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the 

questions; (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 2:13-cv-02358-NVW Document 57 Filed 10/30/14 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

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

Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363-64 & n.8 (9th Cir. 1996); see LRCiv 54.2(c)(3). Factors (1) 

through (4) and (6) are taken into account in either the reasonable hours component or the 

reasonable rate component of the lodestar calculation. Morales, 96 F.3d at 364 n.9. 

Factors (5) and (7) through (12) are considered in determining whether to adjust the 

presumably reasonable lodestar figure. Id. 

 The analysis starts with the fees and values claimed by Respondent. Petitioner 

again attempts to rewrite the history of this litigation and the positions it took. Prior 

orders addressed this and will not be repeated here. Respondent’s claimed times and 

hourly rate values are reasonable. The court awards to Respondent the reasonable 

attorney fees incurred in successfully resisting the unlawful demand for unconditional 

rehire. Services that would have been incurred on that successful matter are compensable 

even if they also related to the matters on which Respondent failed. See Pate v. AlamedaContra Costa Transit Dist., 697 F.2d 870, 872-73 (9th Cir. 1983). Fees related only to 

the matters on which Respondent failed are excluded from this award. Id. Petitioner’s 

Response largely misses this fundamental principle. 

 Petitioner’s objections to services involving subpoenas, the record on which the 

case was to be decided, scheduling matters, paralegal work, settlement efforts, and in 

seeking fees, including the contention of excessiveness, are unmeritorious and are 

rejected. The services are part of Respondent’s principal success, even if specific efforts 

did not succeed. Id. Respondent’s reductions for services related only to the 

unsuccessful matters are reasonable, and Petitioner has not shown them to be erroneous. 

In summary, Petitioner’s specific objections are unpersuasive and are rejected. 

Case 2:13-cv-02358-NVW Document 57 Filed 10/30/14 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Amended Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

(Doc. 55) is granted in the amount of $55,739.76. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of 

Respondent and against Petitioner in his official capacity in the amount of $55,739.76. 

 Dated this 29th day of October, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02358-NVW Document 57 Filed 10/30/14 Page 3 of 3