Rodriguez v. Pride Dealer Services Incorporated

Filing 19

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. See attached document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/24/2024. (RMV)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Mayra Rodriguez,

10
11
12
13

No. CV-23-01955-PHX-ROS

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Pride Dealer Services Inc., a Florida
corporation,

14

Defendant.

15
16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

17

(“Motion”) (Doc. 18) seeking $22,832.09 in fees and costs. For the reasons that follow,

18

the Court will grant Plaintiff’s award of fees and costs in a reduced amount of $12,100.11.

19

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff filed this suit for unpaid wages, overtime, and minimum wages under the

21

Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”), and

22

the Arizona Wage Act (“AWA”). (Doc. 1). Defendant Pride Dealer Services, Inc. was

23

properly served (Doc. 9) but failed to answer or otherwise participate in the action. The

24

Court granted default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $47,639.00. (Doc. 16).

25

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

26

I.

ENTITLEMENT AND ELIGIBILITY TO FEES

27

Plaintiff requests $22,270.00 in attorneys’ fees and $562.09 in costs in accordance

28

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2, and

1

29 U.S.C. § 216(b)—the FLSA’s fee-shifting provision that “provides for attorney fees and

2

costs to a successful plaintiff.” Haworth v. State of Nev., 56 F.3d 1048, 1050 n.1 (9th Cir.

3

1995). The Court finds Plaintiff is eligible for, and entitled to, attorneys’ fees.

4
5

The FLSA requires courts to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to successful
plaintiffs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); see also Houser v. Matson, 447 F.2d 860, 863 (9th Cir.

6

1971) (“[The statute] provides that an award of attorney’s fee ‘shall’ be made to the

7

successful plaintiff. The award of an attorney’s fee is mandatory.”). As the prevailing

8

party in the present FLSA action, (Doc. 16), Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees.

9
10

Although Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to an award of fees, Plaintiff is not
entitled to payment for time spent in preparing the instant Motion. The Ninth Circuit

11

generally permits an award of fees for time expended in preparing a motion for attorneys’

12

fees. See In re Nucorp Energy, Inc., 764 F.2d 655, 659-60 (9th Cir. 1985) (“In statutory

13
14
15

fee cases, federal courts, including our own, have uniformly held that time spent in
establishing the entitlement to and amount of the fee is compensable.”); Gary v. Carbon
Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 479 (D. Ariz. 2019) (citing In re Nucorp, 764 F.2d

16

at 660) (“[I]t would be inconsistent to dilute a fees award by refusing to compensate

17

attorneys for the time they reasonably spent in establishing their rightful claim to the fee.”).

18

However, to receive an award for fees associated with preparing an attorneys’ fees motion,

19

strict compliance with this Court’s Local Rules is required.

20

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2(c)(2) provides: “If the moving party claims

21

entitlement to fees for preparing the motion and memorandum for award of attorneys’ fees

22
23
24
25
26

and related non-taxable expenses, such party also must cite the applicable legal authority
supporting such specific request.” (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff requests fees for 7.4
hours billed in preparing the instant Motion and its supporting documents. 1 Plaintiff does
not, however, cite to any applicable legal authority supporting this request. The Court finds
Plaintiff is not entitled to payment for the 7.4 hours spent in preparing this Motion. Thus,

27
1

28

The Court is referring to four specific time entries between May 13 and May 17, 2024.
(See Doc. 18-1, Ex. A at 8-9). These time entries include drafting the Motion, revising it,
drafting supporting documents such as declarations, and preparing exhibits.
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

preliminarily, the Court will reduce the fee award by $2,120.00. See Moshir v. Automobili
Lamborghini Am. LLC, 927 F. Supp. 2d 789, 803–04 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“[Plaintiff] has failed
to specifically cite any applicable legal authority supporting his claim of entitlement to fees
for preparing the motion and memorandum for award of attorneys’ fees, as required by
LRCiv 54.2(c)(2) .... Accordingly, [Plaintiff] has not shown that he is entitled to recovery
for the 22.6 hours of attorney time spent in preparing his motion for fees and costs. The
court will reduce the reasonable hours component of the lodestar calculation
accordingly.”); see also Croomes v. Stream Glob. Servs.-AZ, Inc., No. CV11-0141-PHXJAT, 2012 WL 1247021, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 13, 2012) (denying defendant’s request for
fees incurred in preparing motion for fees and costs because defendant failed to cite any
legal authority supporting request); see also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Margaillan, No.
CIV 13-312-TUC-CKJ, 2014 WL 169801, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2014) (“No authority
having been provided for an award for the preparation of the pending motion, the Court
will reduce the requested award by $450.00 (2.75 hours), the amount requested for the
preparation of the pending motion.”).

16
17
18

The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees, excluding those incurred in
preparing the instant Motion.
II.

REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED AWARD

19

While the FLSA mandates an award of attorneys’ fees to a successful plaintiff,

20

29 U.S.C. § 216(b), “the amount of the award is within the discretion of the court,” Houser

21

v. Matson, 447 F.2d 860, 863 (9th Cir. 1971). Courts “employ the ‘lodestar’ method to

22

determine a reasonable attorney’s fees award.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099

23

(9th Cir. 2016) (citing Fischer v. SJB–P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000)).

24

Courts calculate the lodestar figure by “multiplying the number of hours reasonably

25

expended on a case by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id.

26
27
28

After calculating the lodestar figure, a Court may reduce or increase the award based
on a variety of factors. Those factors include: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the
novelty and difficulty of the legal questions involved, (3) the skill required to perform the
-3-

1
2
3
4
5

legal service properly, (4) other employment precluded due to acceptance of the 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

6

in similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Kerr

7

factors”).2 The lodestar calculation normally subsumes some of these factors such that the

8
9
10

Court need not consider them again after determining the lodestar. See Gonzalez v. City of
Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir. 2013) (identifying factors often considered when
calculating lodestar).

11

A. Hourly Rates

12

The first question is whether Plaintiff’s asserted rate is reasonable. “A reasonable

13

hourly rate is ordinarily the prevailing market rate in the relevant community.” Sw. Fair

14

Hous. Council v. WG Scottsdale LLC, No. 19-00180, 2022 WL 16715613 at *3 (D. Ariz.

15

Nov. 4, 2022) (citing Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099). And “the burden is on the fee applicant to

16

produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits—that the

17
18
19

requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by
lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465
U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984).

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff’s Counsel, Ty Frankel and Patti Syverson, are partners at Frankel Syverson
PLLC with decades of experience in wage and hour law litigation. (Doc. 18-1 at 2-3).
According to Mr. Frankel’s declaration, he and Ms. Syverson have practiced law in
Arizona since 2009 and 2000, respectively. (Doc. 18-1 at 2-3). Plaintiff asserts a $400 per
hour billing rate for both Mr. Frankel and Ms. Syverson (Doc. 18 at 4), supported by Mr.
Frankel’s declaration outlining the extent of their experience and stating the $400 rate is
reasonable (Doc. 18-1). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts a $190 hourly billing rate for the

27
2

28

LRCiv. 54.2 also lists factors the Court must address when determining the
reasonableness of the requested award. These factors are largely duplicative of the Kerr
factors.
-4-

1
2

firm’s paralegal, David Streyle, who has allegedly been working as a paralegal for over 20
years. (Doc. 18-1 at 4, 8).

3

According to Mr. Frankel, his and Ms. Syverson’s $400 hourly rate, along with Mr.

4

Streyle’s $190 hourly rate, “are generally in accordance with the rates charged by other

5

lawyers and paralegals in this community with similar experience and education.”

6

(Doc. 18-1 at 9). In 2020, the District of Arizona twice awarded fees to Plaintiff’s Counsel

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

in FLSA cases at hourly rates of $350-$400 for attorneys Frankel and Syverson and $190
for paralegal Streyle. See Alvarez v. Direct Energy Bus. Mktg. LLC, No. CV-16-03657PHX-SPL, Doc. 272-1; see also Shoults v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA) Inc., No. CV-19-02408PHX-GMS, Docs. 327-2, 330. The prevailing rates for FLSA cases in the District of
Arizona and Counsel’s experience support their requested hourly rates. Thus, the Court
finds the $400 hourly attorney rate and the $190 hourly paralegal rate to be reasonable.
B. Hours Expended
Under the lodestar method, the prevailing party is generally entitled to recover fees

15

for “every item of service which, at the time rendered, would have been undertaken by a

16

reasonable and prudent lawyer to advance or protect his client’s interest.” Gary v. Carbon

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 486 (D. Ariz. 2019) (quoting Twin City Sportservice
v. Charles O. Finley & Co., 676 F.2d 1291, 1313 (9th Cir. 1982)). Courts may “exclude
from this initial fee calculation hours that were not reasonably expended.” Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983) (internal quotations omitted); see also McKown v.
City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In determining the appropriate
number of hours to be included in a lodestar calculation, the district court should exclude
hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”).
Unreasonable hours may be excluded in one of two ways. Gonzalez v. City of
Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2013). First, courts may exclude unreasonable

26

hours after “conduct[ing] an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request[.]’” Id. (internal

27

quotation marks omitted). Second, courts “faced with a massive fee application” may

28

“make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the
-5-

1

final lodestar figure as a practical means of excluding non-compensable hours from a fee

2

application.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Fox v. Vice, 563

3

U.S. 826, 838 (2011) (“[T]rial courts need not, and indeed should not, become green-

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

eyeshade accountants. The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough
justice, not to achieve auditing perfection. So trial courts may take into account their overall
sense of a suit, and may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time.”).
When a district court excludes hours, it must explain how it came up with the amount of
an attorneys’ fees award. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111
(9th Cir. 2008) (“The explanation need not be elaborate, but it must be comprehensible ...
Where the difference between the lawyer’s request and the court’s award is relatively
small, a somewhat cursory explanation will suffice. But where the disparity is larger, a
more specific articulation of the court’s reasoning is expected.” (citations omitted).

13

Plaintiff submits a task-based itemized statement of time Plaintiff’s Counsel

14

expended on this case. (Doc. 18-1, Ex. A). The itemized statement lists Counsel’s total

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

number of hours expended as 68.8 hours. (Id.). Having carefully considered the time and
labor reasonably required for each task in Plaintiff’s itemized statement, the Court finds
the hours expended proffered by Plaintiff are not reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will
decrease the lodestar amount by reducing the number of hours the Court deems
unreasonable as set forth in the table attached to this Order, infra (the “Table”). The
reduction of the lodestar amount is supported by consideration of the relevant Kerr factors
discussed below.
1. Factors (1), (2), and (3): Time, Difficulty, and Skill
The first three Kerr factors courts consider are (1) the time and labor required, (2)
the novelty and difficulty of the legal questions involved, and (3) the skill required to
perform the legal service properly.
As an initial matter, parties may not recover fees for tasks performed by attorneys
and paralegals which are clerical or administrative in nature. Gary v. Carbon Cycle
Arizona LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 487 (D. Ariz. 2019); see Neil v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
-6-

1
2
3
4

495 Fed.Appx. 845, 847 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that “the district court did not abuse its
discretion in declining to award [ ] attorney’s fees for purely clerical tasks such as filing
documents and preparing and serving summons”); see also Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d
906, 921 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that clerical tasks such as filing and document

5

organization “should have been subsumed in firm overhead rather than billed at paralegal

6

rates”); see also Pearson v. Nat’l Credit Sys., Inc., No. 2: CV-10-0526-PHX-MHM, 2010

7

WL 5146805, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13. 2010) (“[T]asks which are clerical in nature are not

8

recoverable.”).

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Non-compensable clerical or administrative tasks include, but are not limited to: (1)
reviewing Court-generated notices; (2) scheduling dates and deadlines; (3) calendaring
dates and deadlines; (4) notifying a client of dates and deadlines; (5) preparing documents
for filing with the Court; (6) filing documents with the Court; (7) informing a client that a
document has been filed; (8) personally delivering documents; (9) bates stamping and other
labeling of documents; (10) maintaining and pulling files; (11) copying, printing, and
scanning documents; receiving, downloading, and emailing documents; and (12)

16

communicating with Court staff. I.T. ex rel. Renee T. v. Dep’t of Educ., Hawaii, 18 F.

17

Supp. 3d 1047, 1062 (D. Haw. 2014), aff’d sub nom. I. T. by & through Renee & Floyd T.

18

v. Dep’t of Educ., Hawaii, 700 F. App’x 596 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted).

19
20
21
22

Here, Counsel seeks compensation for 8.4 hours of clerical and administrative tasks
including “prepar[ing] civil cover sheet and summons,” “complet[ing] electronic filing,”
submitting documents to process server, reviewing orders from the Court, requesting
records, mailing documents, tracking mail, and preparing documents for filing with the

23

Court. Consequently, Counsel may not recover for these tasks because they “should have

24

been subsumed in firm overhead.” Nadarajah, 569 F.3d at 921. The Table attached

25
26
27
28

denotes all submitted time entries containing clerical and administrative tasks in green
coloring and accordingly lists a reduction in the amount billed. Thus, the Court will reduce
the number of hours expended by an additional 8.4 hours to account for non-compensable
clerical and administrative tasks.
-7-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Additionally, the Court finds that a further reduction of hours is warranted based on
the relatively low complexity of the case and the correspondingly diminished demands
required of Counsel who have substantial expertise in the law. Plaintiff contends the time
and labor expended was reasonable “given the course of the litigation” as related to matters
such as performing preliminary legal research, filing a Complaint, dealing with an evasive
defendant, and preparing a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 18 at 5-6). This case is a
relatively straightforward one dealing simply with a plaintiff who was not paid her wages
by her employer, as evidenced by the 10-page Complaint. Counsel billed over 10 hours
for tasks performed regarding relatively simple service issues, such as a 3-page motion for
alternative service. Defendant never appeared, and Plaintiff needed not litigate the case.
Indeed, Plaintiff applied for default (another straightforward procedure) and was
subsequently required to show cause for failing to timely file a motion for default judgment.
Eventually, Plaintiff moved for default judgment, and the case ended.
In other words, Counsel performed the bare minimum in order to receive a
judgment, yet claims compensation for an enormous number of hours typical only in
complex FLSA cases. Consequently, the Court will further reduce the fee award by
adjusting the unreasonable entries as denoted in purple coloring in the Table, marking a 34
percent reduction in compensable hours (after subtracting the non-compensable fees
motion and clerical tasks). See Sclafani v. Allianceone Receivables Mgmt., No. 09-61675-

20

CIV, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142771, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 28, 2011) (reducing Plaintiff’s

21

compensable hours by 30 percent because it “was not a particularly novel or complicated

22

case,” “it should not have required the claimed degree of time and labor,” and Counsel “has

23

extensive experience with FDCPA cases”).

24

2. Factor (9): Experience, Reputation, and Ability of the Attorneys

25

The Court’s reduction of hours is further supported by Counsel’s exceptional

26

experience, reputation, and ability. Mr. Frankel’s states Counsel has decades of experience

27
28

in wage and hour law. Indeed, the Court finds that Counsel’s extensive experience and
competency in matters at bar is commensurate with Counsel’s ability to handle routine
-8-

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

wage cases in an efficient manner. Counsel’s experience and reputation—while entitling
them to charge higher rates—enables Counsel to perform tasks quicker than their lessseasoned counterparts. See Grey v. Chater, No. 95 CIV. 8847 (JFK), 1997 WL 12806, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 1997) (finding the number of hours spent by counsel who was
experienced in Social Security benefits law was excessive in light of the diminished
complexity of the case and reducing the hours from 65.03 to 30).
3. Factor (12): Awards in Similar Cases
Fee orders in similar cases support a reduction of hours. The District of Arizona
has considered numerous motions for attorneys’ fees involving routine FLSA cases where
a defendant has defaulted and the court has granted plaintiff a default judgment; counsel in
these cases, experienced and inexperienced alike, have never come close to expending and
requesting the 68.8 hours Counsel claims here. See Romero v. Steel Roots LLC, No. CV23-01033-PHX-ROS, 2024 WL 2389353, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2024) (19.1 hours);
Mumphrey v. Good Neighbor Cmty. Servs. LLC, No. CV-23-00923-PHX-ROS, 2023 WL
8702103, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2023) (11.1 hours); Aguirre v. Custom Image Pros LLC,
No. CV-23-00334-PHX-MTL, 2023 WL 5932805, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12, 2023) (22.3
hours); Aguirre v. Custom Image Pros LLC, No. CV-23-00419-PHX-ROS, Doc. 20, (D.
Ariz. Nov. 16, 2023) (12.7 hours); Ramos v. Probuilds LLC, No. CV-23-01111-PHXSMM, 2024 WL 1078078, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2024), report and recommendation
adopted, No. CV-23-01111-PHX-SMM, 2024 WL 1071204 (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2024) (15.3
hours) ; Xalamihua v. GGC Legacy Janitorial Servs. LLC, No. CV-23-00009-TUC-BGM,
2024 WL 942101 at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 5, 2024) (14.7 hours); Johnson v. Colvin, No. CV23-00623-PHX-JZB, 2024 WL 3488405 (D. Ariz. June 13, 2024), report and
recommendation adopted, No. CV-23-00623-PHX-SMM (JZB), 2024 WL 3471317 at *2
(D. Ariz. July 19, 2024) (32.3 hours); Coe v. Hirsch, No. CV-21-00478-PHX-SMMMTM, 2022 WL 508841, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 21, 2022) (14.6 hours); Peralta v. Custom
Image Pros LLC, No. CV-23-00358-PHX-JAT, 2024 WL 620901 at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 14,
2024) (10.9 hours); Rodriguez v. D’Auto Boys LLC, No. CV2201420PHXSMMJZB, 2024
-9-

1
2
3
4

WL 1861247, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 5, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No.
CV2201420PHXSMMJZB, 2024 WL 1856557 (D. Ariz. Apr. 29, 2024) (14 hours);
Castro v. C&C Verde LLC, No. CV-18-04715-PHX-JZB, 2019 WL 13244383, at *2 (D.
Ariz. Oct. 9, 2019) (14.2 hours).

5
6
7
8
9
10

Counsel’s proffer of 68.8 hours substantially exceeds hours expended in similar
FLSA cases within this District where default judgment swiftly disposes of the case
following a defendant’s failure to litigate the case. Thus, the Court’s reduction in the
number of hours to 34.9 hours is fair, reasonable, and consistent with (and comparatively
generous to) other similar cases. The Court finds the lodestar figure is $11,538.02 (34.9
hours at rates of $400 and $190).

11

C. Remaining Applicable Kerr Factors

12

Despite a “strong assumption that the ‘lodestar’ method represents a reasonable

13

fee,” Corrales-Gonzalez v. Speed Auto Wholesalers LLC, 2023 WL 3981139, at *7 (D.

14

Ariz. June 13, 2023), the Court “has discretion to adjust the lodestar upward or downward”

15
16
17
18
19
20

based on the Kerr factors not subsumed in the lodestar calculation, Stetson v. Grissom, 821
F.3d 1157, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2016). Courts must assess these factors and must articulate
“with sufficient clarity the manner in which it makes its determination.” Carter v. Caleb
Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 2014). The above lodestar analysis subsumes many
of the Kerr factors. The Court considers the remaining applicable factors here and finds
none justify adjusting the lodestar figure.

21

Plaintiff argues Counsel should be awarded its full fees based on their contingency

22

fee agreement,3 the favorable result obtained, and the “undesirability” of the case based on

23

the “relatively small” amount involved in the dispute. The Court acknowledges Counsel’s

24

efforts in obtaining a favorable result for Plaintiff; however, “the quality of an attorney’s

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff’s fee agreement with Counsel (Doc. 18-1, Ex. B) states “[i]f client recovers
monies in the case, the Firm shall be entitled to the greater of 33-1/3% of the amount
ultimately recovered or the actual amount of fees incurred (based on the attorney’s
customary hourly rate(s) and hours expended).” Although the Court is not asked to
determine the amount owed to Counsel by Plaintiff, it notes that the amount of Counsel’s
reasonable fees is less than 33-1/3% of the amount of the judgment.
3

- 10 -

1

performance generally should not be used to adjust the lodestar figure … because

2

considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party’s counsel’s representation

3
4
5
6

normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate. Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559
U.S. 542, 553 (2010) (internal quotation omitted). Additionally, based on the allegations,
Plaintiff’s judgment of $47,639.00 is not an “undesirable” sum. Therefore, the Court finds
no adjustment to the lodestar amount is necessary.

7

D. Conclusion

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

The Court finds Counsel is not entitled to recover (1) tasks related to preparing the
instant motion and (2) clerical/administrative tasks. Additionally, the Court finds Counsel
expended an unreasonable number of hours based on the simplicity of the case, Counsel’s
extensive knowledge and experience in handling wage cases, and awards in similar cases
previously granted by this District. Accordingly, a reduction in the number of hours from
68.8 to 34.9 is justified. Having found the $400 hourly attorney rate and the $190 hourly
paralegal rate reasonable, the Court will award attorney’ fees in the amount of $11,538.02.

15

COSTS

16

In addition to attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff requests $562.09 in out-of-pocket costs, Mot.

17

at 7, detailed in Mr. Frankel’s Declaration (Doc. 18-1 at 12). Reasonable out-of-pocket

18

expenses are awardable as “costs of the action” under the FLSA. See Van Dyke v. BTS

19
20
21

Container Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 2997105, at *2 (D. Or. Sept. 15, 2009). The Court finds
Plaintiff’s requested out-of-pocket costs—consisting of filing fees, service of process costs,
and postage costs—reasonable and will award Plaintiff $562.09 in costs.

22

Accordingly,

23

…

24

…

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

- 11 -

1
2
3
4

IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
(Doc. 18) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiff
$11,538.02 in attorneys’ fees and $562.09 in costs.
Dated this 24th day of September, 2024.

5
6
7
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 12 -

Date
9/11/2023
9/12/2023
9/12/2023
9/13/2023
9/13/2023
9/14/2023
9/14/2023
9/15/2023
9/15/2023
9/17/2023
9/18/2023
9/18/2023

9/18/2023
9/18/2023
9/20/2023

9/20/2023

Atty

Description

TDF Teleconference with Mayra Rodriguez
regarding (Redacted)
TDF Analyze documents regarding potential
claims against Pride Dealer Services
TDF Communications with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
TDF Analyze documents
TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
TDF Draft complaint
TDF Multiple correspondence with Rodriguez
regarding (Redacted)
TDF Draft complaint
PNS Review client documents and review draft
complaint
TDF Finalize complaint
DJS Proof, revise and finalize complaint (1.2);
Prepare civil cover sheet and summons
(.2); Complete electronic filing of same
(.2); Exchange email with T. Frankel re
same (.1)
TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
PNS Telephone conference with Mr. Frankel
regarding allegations
DJS Submit complaint and related case
initiating documents to Liddy Legal
Support Services to be served
PNS Review initial orders from court

Hours

Rate

Amount

Reduction
Percentage

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

0%

Reduced
Amount
$200.00

1.50

$400.00

$600.00

50%

$300.00

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

0%

$200.00

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

0%

$80.00

1.00
0.10

$400.00
$400.00

$400.00
$40.00

50%
0%

$200.00
$40.00

1.00
0.50

$400.00
$400.00

$400.00
$200.00

50%
0%

$200.00
$200.00

2.50
1.00

$400.00
$400.00

$1,000.00
$400.00

50%
50%

$500.00
$200.00

1.50
1.70

$400.00
$190.00

$600.00
$323.00

50%
24%

$300.00
$77.52

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

0%

$200.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0%

$40.00

0.50

$190.00

$95.00

100%

$0.00

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

100%

$0.00

9/25/2023

9/29/2023

9/29/2023
10/2/2023

10/2/2023
10/6/2023

10/10/2023

10/10/2023
10/10/2023
10/11/2023
10/12/2023
10/12/2023

DJS Exchange email with T. Frankel re status
of service of complaint and case initiating
documents
DJS Telephone conference with Liddy re status
of service of complaint (.1); Exchange
email with T. Frankel re same (.1)

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

0.20

$190.00

$38.00

0%

$38.00

TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
DJS Exchange email with Brett Long of Liddy re
status of service of complaint and case
initiating documents (.1); Exchange email
with T. Frankel and P. Syverson re same
(.1)
PNS Discuss service of process issues
DJS Prepare email to T. Frankel and P.
Syverson re status of service of complaint
and case initiating documents

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

0%

$80.00

0.20

$190.00

$38.00

0%

$38.00

0.20
0.10

$400.00
$190.00

$80.00
$19.00

0%
0%

$80.00
$19.00

DJS Exchange email with Brett Long of Liddy
and re failed service and next steps (.2);
Exchange email with T. Frankel re same
(.1)
TDF Research regarding alternative service
PNS Review email regarding service of process
issues
TDF Research regarding motion for alternative
service
TDF Draft motion for alternative service
TDF Correspondence to Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)

0.30

$190.00

$57.00

0%

$57.00

0.50
0.10

$400.00
$400.00

$200.00
$40.00

0%
50%

$200.00
$20.00

2.00

$400.00

$800.00

50%

$400.00

2.00
0.10

$400.00
$400.00

$800.00
$40.00

50%
0%

$400.00
$40.00

10/12/2023

DJS Exchange email with Brett of Liddy re
attempted service and affidavit re same
(.1); Prepare email to T. Frankel re same
(.1)
PNS Review affidavit regarding attempted
service
TDF Draft motion for alternative service
PNS Review motion for alternative service
TDF Finalize motion for alternative service
PNS Discuss motion for alternative service with
Mr. Frankel
DJS Review and revise draft motion for
alternative service, exhibits and proposed
order (.7); Communicate with T. Frankel re
same (.1); Revise and finalize same (.2);
Electronically file same (.1); Prepare email
Judge Silver with Word version of
proposed order (.1)

0.20

$190.00

$38.00

0%

$38.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0%

$40.00

3.00
0.20
0.50
0.10

$400.00
$400.00
$400.00
$400.00

$1,200.00
$80.00
$200.00
$40.00

50%
50%
50%
0%

$600.00
$40.00
$100.00
$40.00

1.20

$190.00

$228.00

50%

$114.00

10/17/2023

TDF Review order regarding alternative service

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

100%

$0.00

10/17/2023

DJS Begin process to request documentation
via FOIA / public records requests from
DOL and ICA (.1); Exchange email with T.
Frankel re same (.1)

0.20

$190.00

$38.00

50%

$19.00

10/18/2023

DJS Complete mailing of Complaint and case
initiating documents via Certified Mail (.4);
Communicate with T. Frankel re same (.2);
Travel to and from post office re same (.4)

1.00

$190.00

$190.00

100%

$0.00

10/12/2023
10/13/2023
10/13/2023
10/16/2023
10/16/2023
10/16/2023

10/18/2023

DJS Confer with T. Frankel re certified mailing,
tracking same, filing notice of service and
docketing answer date
DJS Track 10/18/23 certified mailing of
complaint and case initiating documents;
Exchange email with T. Frankel re same

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

50%

$9.50

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

100%

$0.00

10/24/2023

DJS Prepare email to DOL to obtain documents
pursuant to Freedom of Information Act Public Records Request

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

50%

$9.50

10/24/2023

DJS Review email acknowledgement from
Glenn Lewis of DOL re FOIA Public
Records Request
DJS Prepare and submit public records request
form to Industrial Commission of Arizona

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

50%

$9.50

0.30

$190.00

$57.00

100%

$0.00

10/26/2023

DJS Track 10/18/23 certified mailing of
complaint and case initiating documents;
Exchange email with T. Frankel re same

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

100%

$0.00

10/26/2023

DJS Communicate with T. Frankel re Notice of
Alternative Service (.1); Prepare same (.1);
Electronically file same (.1)
TDF Draft notice of service
TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
PNS Discuss alternative service issues with T.
Frankel

0.30

$190.00

$57.00

50%

$28.50

0.30
0.20

$400.00
$400.00

$120.00
$80.00

0%
0%

$120.00
$80.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

50%

$20.00

10/24/2023

10/24/2023

10/26/2023
10/26/2023
10/26/2023

10/30/2023

DJS Review USPS tracking status of certified
mail (.1); Exchange email with T. Frankel
re same and docketing response (.2);
Review FRCP re same (.2)

0.50

$190.00

$95.00

50%

$47.50

10/30/2023
10/30/2023

TDF Evaluate status of service
PNS Email with Mr. Frankel regarding service
issues
DJS Review Acknowledgement letter and
Interim Response letters from U.S. DOL re
records request and confer with T. Frankel
re same
DJS Review USPS tracking re service by mail
and exchange email with T. Frankel re
same
TDF Research regarding application for default
judgment
DJS Draft application for default and supporting
affidavit
TDF Analyze issues regarding application for
default and timing for submission
TDF Correspondence to Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
PNS Discuss timing for filing for default
judgment with T. Frankel
TDF Communications with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
DJS Review email from Christina Sanchez of
AZICA re public records request
DJS Prepare email to Crystal Thompson of
DOL re narrowing scope of request to
Compliance Action Reports and case
narratives

0.10
0.10

$400.00
$400.00

$40.00
$40.00

100%
0%

$0.00
$40.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

100%

$0.00

0.40

$400.00

$160.00

0%

$160.00

1.00

$190.00

$190.00

0%

$190.00

0.40

$400.00

$160.00

0%

$160.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0%

$40.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0%

$40.00

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

0%

$80.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

11/8/2023

11/16/2023

11/27/2023
11/30/2023
11/30/2023
11/30/2023
11/30/2023
12/1/2023
12/4/2023
12/6/2023

12/12/2023

12/12/2023
12/12/2023

12/12/2023
12/14/2023
12/14/2023
12/14/2023

12/14/2023
1/2/2024

1/3/2024

TDF Finalize application for default, supporting
exhibits, and obtain notarization regarding
same
PNS Review application of default and discuss
filing same
DJS Finalize application for default and exhibit
(.2); Exchange email with T. Frankel re
same (.1); Electronically file same (.1);
Complete mailing of hard copy of filing to
Defendant (.4)
TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
TDF Review order regarding default
TDF Research regarding motion for default
judgment
DJS Review email from Crystal Thompson of
U.S. DOL re FOIA requests and search
DOL Data Enforcement database to
identify specific case ID numbers
requesting in response to FOIA request
(.1); Prepare email to Thompson re same
(.1)

2.00

$400.00

$800.00

50%

$400.00

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

50%

$100.00

0.80

$190.00

$152.00

63%

$96.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0%

$40.00

0.10
1.00

$400.00
$400.00

$40.00
$400.00

100%
50%

$0.00
$200.00

0.20

$190.00

$38.00

0%

$38.00

PNS Review default entered by clerk and
discuss with Mr. Frankel
DJS Review email and attached final response
correspondence from Federal Department
of Labor re FOIA request

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

100%

$0.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

DJS Review complaint and client documents
and begin preparing damages estimate

0.50

$190.00

$95.00

50%

$47.50

1/4/2024

DJS Review complaint and client documents
and complete preparation of damages
estimate (1.3); Prepare email to T. Frankel
re same (.1)
DJS Review email and attachment from
Industrial Commission of Arizona re public
records request
TDF Analysis regarding damages for motion for
default
TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
DJS Telephone call to Mayra Rodriguez re
(Redacted)
DJS Exchange email with T. Frankel re attempt
to reach Mayra Rodriguez re (Redacted)

1.40

$190.00

$266.00

0%

$266.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

0%

$200.00

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

0%

$80.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

1/10/2024
1/10/2024

TDF Review order to show cause
TDF Draft notice regarding order to show cause

0.10
0.30

$400.00
$400.00

$40.00
$120.00

100%
0%

$0.00
$120.00

1/10/2024

DJS Follow up telephone call to Mayra
Rodriguez re (Redacted); Prepare email to
Rodriguez re same
DJS Exchange email with Mayra Rodriguez to
(Redacted)
PNS Review order to show cause regarding
motion for default (0.1); review draft
response notice to same (0.1); discuss
with Mr. Frankel (0.1)
DJS Telephone call to and leave voicemail for
Mayra Rodriguez re (Redacted)
DJS Follow up telephone call to Rodriguez re
(Redacted) and prepare email to T.
Frankel re same

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

50%

$60.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

0.10

$190.00

$19.00

0%

$19.00

1/4/2024

1/9/2024
1/9/2024
1/9/2024
1/10/2024

1/10/2024
1/10/2024

1/11/2024
1/11/2024

1/11/2024
1/11/2024

1/11/2024
1/15/2024
1/16/2024
1/22/2024
1/23/2024

1/23/2024
1/24/2024

1/25/2024

TDF Finalize notice regarding order to show
cause
DJS Finalize Notice re Order to Show Cause
(.1); Electronically file same (.1); Complete
mailing of hard copy to defendant via US
Mail (.1)

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

50%

$0.00

0.30

$190.00

$57.00

100%

$0.00

PNS Review Court’s order granting extension
on motion for default
TDF Communication with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
TDF Teleconference with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
TDF Draft motion for default judgment and
supporting declaration
DJS Review and revise damages estimates,
draft motion for default and declaration in
support of same (2.0); Confer with T.
Frankel re same (.3)
TDF Revise damages analysis for motion to
default
DJS Compile and redact pay statements for
attachment to declaration in support of
motion for default (.4); Prepare and insert
tables detailing damages calculations into
motion and declaration (1.5); Further
revise motion and declaration (1.2);
Prepare email to T. Frankel re same (.1)

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

100%

$0.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0%

$40.00

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

0%

$80.00

5.20

$400.00

$2,080.00

50%

$1,040.00

2.30

$190.00

$437.00

50%

$218.50

0.70

$400.00

$280.00

50%

$140.00

3.20

$190.00

$608.00

50%

$304.00

TDF Revise motion for default judgment

3.00

$400.00

$1,200.00

50%

$600.00

1/25/2024

1/25/2024
1/25/2024

1/25/2024

1/25/2024

1/26/2024

1/26/2024
1/26/2024
1/26/2024
3/11/2024

PNS Review and revise motion for default,
supporting declaration and proposed order
(0.5); telephone conferences with Mr.
Frankel and Mr. Streyle regarding same
(0.3)
TDF Communications to Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
DJS Review and revise final draft motion for
default and supporting declaration (.7);
Communicate with T. Frankel and P.
Syverson re same (.2)
DJS Prepare email to Mayra Rodriguez re
(Redacted) (.1); Transmit same via
Dropbox Sign for e-signature (.1)

0.80

$400.00

$320.00

50%

$160.00

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

0%

$120.00

0.90

$190.00

$171.00

50%

$85.50

0.20

$190.00

$38.00

50%

$19.00

DJS Review executed declaration in support of
motion for default back from Mayra
Rodriguez (.1); Exchange email with T.
Frankel re same (.1)
DJS Review and finalize Motion for Default
Judgment and related documents (.9);
Communicate with T. Frankel re same;
Electronically file same (.1); Prepare email
to Judge attaching proposed order in
Word (.1); Complete mailing of same to
defendant (.4)
TDF Finalize motion for default judgment
TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
PNS Telephone conference with Mr. Frankel
regarding motion for default
TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)

0.20

$190.00

$38.00

0%

$38.00

1.50

$190.00

$285.00

50%

$142.50

1.00
0.10

$400.00
$400.00

$400.00
$40.00

50%
0%

$200.00
$40.00

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

0%

$80.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0%

$40.00

5/6/2024

TDF Review order and judgment regarding
wage claims
TDF Correspondence to Rodriguez regarding
(Redacted)
PNS Review order granting default judgment
(0.2); telephone conference with Mr.
Frankel regarding collectability issues (0.1)

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

100%

$20.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0%

$40.00

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

66.6%

$40.00

5/7/2024

TDF Research regarding collecting judgment

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

0%

$80.00

5/13/2024

TDF Draft application for attorneys' fees and
supporting declaration
TDF Revise motion for attorneys' fees and
costs
DJS Review and revise draft application for
attorneys' fees and expenses and
supporting declaration (.8); Begin
preparing exhibits to each (.4)

2.70

$400.00

$1,080.00

100%

$0.00

0.70

$400.00

$280.00

100%

$0.00

1.20

$190.00

$228.00

100%

$0.00

DJS Continue preparing exhibits to application
for attorneys' fees and expenses and
supporting declaration (1.7); Review and
revise fee application and declaration in
support of same (1.1)

2.80

$190.00

$532.00

100%

$0.00

5/6/2024
5/6/2024

5/14/2024
5/16/2024

5/17/2024

Submitted Totals:
Reduced Totals:

68.80 hrs.
34.90 hrs.

$22,270.00
$11,538.02

Color Key
Tasks reduced based on
reasonable time/labor/skill
Clerical/administrative
tasks
Tasks related to preparing
the Instant Motion