Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-01825/USCOURTS-cand-3_95-cv-01825-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel

ROBERT COSTA and STATE OF

CALIFORNIA ex rel ROBERT COSTA,

Plaintiffs,

v

BAKER & TAYLOR, INC d/b/a BAKER &

TAYLOR BOOKS, and W R GRACE & CO

– CONNECTICUT,

Defendants. /

No C 95-1825 VRW

ORDER

After considering the parties’ memoranda and oral

arguments on qui tam plaintiff Robert Costa’s motion for an award

of attorney fees pursuant to California Government Code §

12652(g)(8), the court issued an order granting Costa’s motion in

part on May 29, 2006. Doc #361. Costa has submitted a modified

fee petition which, in addition to conforming to the court’s order, 

requests fees associated with the current motion practice that were

not included in his initial request. Doc ##364, 365 (Second Supp

Case 3:95-cv-01825-VRW Document 369 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Chatfield Decl). Defendant Baker & Taylor availed itself of an

opportunity to respond. Doc #366. Costa submitted an unsolicited

reply. Doc #367. 

Baker & Taylor contends that the court failed to find

that Costa’s request, as modified, is reasonable in light of the

results he achieved notwithstanding what Baker & Taylor

characterizes as Costa’s “limited success.” As support for the

proposition that such a finding is required, Baker & Taylor relies

principally upon Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 US 424 (1983), in which

the Supreme Court expounded upon principles that govern fee

requests under federal law. “The issue of whether [Costa] is

entitled to the full amount of [his] attorney fees request under

state law * * * poses a separate question not answerable simply by

reference to [Hensley].” Sokolow v County of San Mateo, 213 Cal

App 3d 231, 249 (1989) (citing Serrano v Unruh, 32 Cal 3d 621, 639

n 29 (1982) (“Serrano IV”) (“We envision an independent state

rule.”)). It is thus irrelevant that a California court, in the

context of awarding fees pursuant to 42 USC § 1988, relied upon

Hensley for the proposition that a court, after determining that

successful and non-successful claims are interrelated, “‘must still

determine whether the total fees requested are reasonable in

relation to results obtained.’” Doc #366 at 2:26-27 (misquoting

Sokolow, 231 Cal App 3d at 248). 

Putting aside Baker & Taylor’s misplaced reliance upon

Hensley, the court does not doubt that “a reduced fee award is

appropriate when a claimant achieves only limited success.” 

Sokolow, 231 Cal App 3d at 249. At least, “there is nothing in

[Serrano IV] to suggest that a trial court should not reduce the

Case 3:95-cv-01825-VRW Document 369 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

amount of the attorney fees to be awarded where a prevailing party

plaintiff is actually unsuccessful with regard to certain

objectives of its lawsuit.” Id.

It is unclear what objective of the lawsuit went

unfulfilled. The United States and nearly a score of states

obtained settlements totaling approximately $18.5 million, of which

$4 million went to the State of California. To be sure, Costa

cannot claim responsibility for all this success and it is true

that Costa was dismissed as a qui tam plaintiff under the federal

False Claims Act (FCA). But the FCA claim itself, for which Costa

acted as a midwife, remained viable and ultimately the United

States obtained substantial settlements. Cf Sokolow, 213 Cal App

at 249-50 (distinguishing Sundance v Municipal Court, 192 Cal App

3d 268 (1987), on the ground that “[i]t was only the theories that

were unsuccessful, not the claims in support of which the theories

were advanced”). To the extent Baker & Taylor asserts that the FCA

claim was unsuccessful, it overlooks the realities of this

litigation. 

Regardless, the court agrees that Costa is entitled to

nothing more than reasonable fees for his prosecution of the CFCA

claim. In this regard, the court finds that the amount requested

by Costa, as modified by the court’s earlier order, is reasonable

in light of the results obtained on the CFCA claim, with one

caveat: 

Costa now requests fees for 225.2 hours spent almost

entirely by experienced attorneys in connection with the instant

fee petition. That amount of time represents roughly ten percent

of the total hours that a hard-working lawyer would bill in an

Case 3:95-cv-01825-VRW Document 369 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

entire year. Yet, as Baker & Taylor observes, litigating Costa’s

fee petition involved law with which counsel is presumably very

familiar and billing records that were not exceptionally

complicated. For this reason, the court finds it appropriate to

deduct 100 hours from Costa’s revised fee petition. The court

multiplies this time by $405/hour, which represents the

intermediate billing rate of the three lawyers who worked on the

petition. See Second Supp Chatfield Decl, Ex A. The court further

multiplies the resulting product of $40,500 by a factor of 1.1, the

enhancement applicable to fee-related fees. See Doc #361 at 18. 

Costa’s revised fee request is accordingly reduced by $44,550.

In sum, Costa’s request for attorney fees, costs and

expenses is GRANTED. Baker & Taylor is hereby ORDERED to pay

attorney fees, costs and expenses in the amount of $1,274,833.53. 

The clerk is DIRECTED close the file and terminate all pending

motions.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:95-cv-01825-VRW Document 369 Filed 07/05/06 Page 4 of 4