N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GER ALD FLEM ING, a

n individual; SER GIO M ONTENEGR O, a n individual; R OB ER T M OR

ALES, a n individual; EDDIE R AM IR EZ, a

n individual, on be ha lf of the m se lve s a

nd a ll othe r sim ila

rly situa te d, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C OVIDIEN, INC .; TYC O HEALTHC A R E GR OUP, L.P., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-56836 D.C . No. 5:10-c v-01487-R GK-OP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 27, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd R AW L INSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HUC K , Distric t Judge
. ** 

# FIL ED OCT 03 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Pa ul C . Huc k, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Florida , sitting by de s igna tion.Appe lla nts Ge ra ld Fle m ing a

nd his fe llow c la ss m e m

be rs se e k re ve rsa l of the d istric t c o urt’ s attorne y s’ fe e award. Appe lla n ts, the pla intiffs be low, m ove d to
c e rtify two c l a sse s unde r C a lifornia sta te la w a ga inst, a

m ong othe rs, Appe lle e s C ovidie n , Inc . a

n d Ty c o He a lthc are Group, L.P. (c olle c tive ly , “ C ovidie n” ). The first c la ss a lle ge d that C ovidie n fa ile d to pa y “ off-the -c loc k” wa ge s in viola tion of C a lifornia la w; the se c ond c la ss a lle ge d C o vidie n’ s wa ge sta te m e nts we re de fic ie nt be c a use the y did not inc lude i nform ation re quire d unde r C a l. La b. C ode § 226(a ). The distric t c ourt de nie d c la ss c e rtific ation of theoff-the -c l oc k wa ge s c l a ss, but
c e rtifie d the de fe c tive wa ge sta te m e nt c l a ss. Appe lla nts ultima te ly

pre va ile d in a

one -day be nc h tria l on the de fe c tive
wa ge sta t e m e nt c la s s. The distric t c ourt orde re d tha t C o vidie n pa

y both $500,000 in pe na ltie s and c la ss c o unse l’ s re a sona ble attorne y s’ fe e s. C la ss c ounse l m ove d for a ttorne y s’ fe e s, a

nd a ske d to be c om

pe nsat e d for 746.9 a

ttorne y hours a nd 56.7 pa ra le ga l hours for thewa ge sta te m e nt c la im s. C la s s c ounse l provide d tim e e ntrie s that de ta ile d the nature of the work the attorne y s pe rform e d a nd the i r re spe c tive billing ra te s. In tota l, Appe l la

nts sought a

ttorne y s’ fe e s tota ling $445,717.50 a nd pa ra le ga l fe e s tota l ing $7,087.50. C ovidie n, for its pa

rt, stre sse d tha

t Appe lla nts pre va ile d on just a

fra c tion of the o rigina l a c tion, whic h c onsiste d of “ suc h sim ple issue s and proof tha

t 2[Appe lla

nts] pre se nte d no witne sse s a nd trie d the c a s e in le ss tha n a da y .” The offthe -c loc k c la im s, by

c ontra st, “ we re the foc us of disc ove ry , a sse rte d a ga inst two
a dditiona l de fe n da

nts, a nd litiga te d through c la s s c e rtific ation.” And y e t , Appe l la n ts “ [sought] to im

pose on C ovidie n . . . a

pproxim ate ly

85 pe rc e nt of the tota l fe e s doc um e n te d for the e n tire c a se . ” C ovidie n provide d spe c i fic , de ta ile d
e xam ple s whe re Appe l la

nts purporte dly

ove rbille d on the wa ge sta te m e nt c la im s . The distric t c ourt side d with C ovidie n, a n d a warde d c la ss c ounse l only $58,000 in fe e s a

nd $2,000 in c osts —

88% le ss tha

n the fe e s the y re que ste d. The distric t c o urt found it unlike ly tha t c la ss c ounse l de vote d the va st m a jority of the ir hours (746.9 of 900 hours) to the wa ge sta te m e nt c l a im s, a

nd only a sm a ll m inority (150 hours) to the m ore c om ple x unpa id off-the -c loc k c la im s. The distric t c ourt
a lte rnative ly

he ld tha t e ve n if c l a ss c ounse l did spe nd 750 hours litiga ting thewa ge sta te m e nt c la im s, “ the bulk of the se hours we re duplic at ive and ine ffic ie n t,” in light of the

fa c t tha t “ the num

be r and c ha

ra c te r of the La

bor C ode viola

tions [we re ] fa irly e a sy to de te rm ine .” Thus, thedistric t c ourt he l d tha

t c la ss c ounse l should be
c om pe nsate d for only

210 hours of a

ttorne y tim e and e ight hours of pa ra le ga l tim e (a 70% re duc tion). Thedistric t c ourt a lso re d uc e d the hourly

ra te c l a ss c o unse l propose d . In the distric t c ourt’ s vie w, the “ c a se did not pre se nt a c om plic ate d issue that re q uire d pa rtic ula rly spe c ia liz e d e xpe rtise ” be c a use c la ss c ounse l wa s 3re sponsiblesole ly for de te rm ining “ the wa

y s in whic h the wa ge sta

te m e nts we re non-c o m plia n t unde r § 226 a

nd the num

be r of non-c om

plia nt wa ge sta

t e m e nts.” In the e nd, the distric t c ourt found tha t $250 wa s a re a sona

ble hourly

ra te , not the
ave ra ge of $512.50 pe r hour c l a ss c o unse l sought. C la ss c ounse l a ppe a le d the
award, c onte nding tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in fa iling to provide
a de quate re a sons unde r M ore no v. C ity of Sa c ram e nto, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 2008) (Koz inski, C .J.), in support of its 88% re duc tion of there que ste d fe e a pplic a tion. W e a gre e . W e re c e ntly

m a de c le ar in Gonz a le z v. C ity of M aywood NR S, -- -- F.3d ----, 2013 W L 4779669, (9th C ir. Se pt. 9, 2013), tha t “ whe n a distric t c ourt re duc e s e ithe r the num

be r of hours or thelode sta r by a c e rta in pe rc e nta g e gre ate r tha n 10%, it m

ust providea c le ar and c onc isee xpla n ation for why

it c hose the spe c ific pe rc e nta ge to a

pply ,” id. at *1 (e m

pha sis a d de d). The gre ate r the de viation from the 10% thre shold, the“ m ore spe c ific artic ulation of thec o urt’ s re a soning is
e xpe c te d.” M ore no, 534 F.3d a t 1111. Thedistric t c ourt’ s re a soning fa lls short of this sta nda rd. While the distric t c o urt m ay we ll be c o rre c t

tha t a 70% re d

uc tion a m ounts to
a re a sona ble num be r of hours worke d a

nd tha t c la ss c o unse l de s e rve d a $250 hourly ra te (not $512.50), the

distric t c ourt’ s va gue re a soning puts us in a position 4whe re we c annot m e aningfully pa ss judgm e n t on whe the r the c ourt a buse d its disc re tion. M ore no e s ta

blishe d tha

t a c ross-the -boa

rd pe rc e nta ge re duc tions — while use ful for trim

m i ng the fa t of a

n e xc e s sive fe e a

pplic at ion — will not do whe re the siz e of the re duc tion, a s he re , is m ore e xte nsive tha n a ha irc ut. In orde r to prope rly

re vie w a pe rc e nta ge -ba se d re duc tion — e spe c ia lly one tha

t, a s he re , e xc e e ds the 10% be n c hm ark — a distric t c ourt m

u st, a t the ve ry le a st, providea m e aningful e xpla

nation of a

nd rationa le for the re d

uc tion. Se e Gate s v. De ukm e jia n, 987 F.2d 1392, 1400 (9th C ir. 1993) (“ the use of pe rc e n t a ge s , in a ny c a se , ne ithe r disc ha

rge s the distric t c ourt from its re s ponsibility to se t forth a

‘ c onc ise but c le ar’ e xpla

nat ion of its re a sons for c hoosing a give n pe rc e nta ge re duc t ion nor from

its duty to indepe nde ntly

re vie w the a

pplic ant’ s fe e re que st” ). To be c le ar, we do not pa ss judgm e n t on whe the r the distric t c ourt, in fa c t,
a buse d its disc re tion in a

rriving a t its a ttorne y s ’ fe e s a

ward. R at

he r, we re m and only to providethe distric t c ourt with a n opportunity

to m ore fully

e xpla in its
re a s oning in a c c o rda

n c e with our c irc uit la

w. V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.

5