Eduardo Cervantes v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 140

ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS' FEES by Judge Dean D. Pregerson Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs 115 is GRANTED, in part., Mr. Conlogue reasonably expended 369.6 hours at $275 per hour, plus 8.9 paralegal work hours at $125 p er hour, plus $116.70 in out-of-pocket costs, for a total of $102,869.20. Mr. Avina reasonably expended 204.7 hours at$400 per hour, plus 5.5 paralegal hours at $125 per hour, plus $753 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of of $83,320. Mr. Beck reasonably expended 103.4 hours at $700 per hour, plus $5,735.42 in out-of-pocket costs, for a total of $78,115.42.2 The court awards a grand total of $264,304.62 in attorneys fees and unreimbursed expenses. (jp)

1
2

O

3
4
5

[CLOSED]

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EDUARDO CERVANTES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES;
DEPUTY PAUL CRUZ #412035
individually and as a peace
officer; DEPUTY VICTOR
CISNEROS #519470
individually and as a peace
officer,
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-09889 DDP (MRWx)

ORDER RE: ATTORNEYS’ FEES

[Dkt. 115, 138]

19
20

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for

21

Attorneys’ Fees.

22

including Plaintiff’s supplemental motion, the court adopts the

23

following Order.

24

I.

25

Having considered the submissions of the parties,

Background
Plaintiff brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging

26

constitutional violations related to his initial detention by

27

police and by their subsequent use of force upon him, as well as

28

later malicious prosecution.

Defendants moved for partial summary

1

judgment on the claims pertaining to the initial detention and

2

malicious prosecution.

3

detention violated the Fourth Amendment, granted Defendants’ motion

4

for partial summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity.

5

(Dkt. 56 at 9-10.)

6

to Plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim. (Id. at 11.)

7

proceeded to trial on his excessive force claim.

8
9

This court, although holding that the

The court also granted the motion with respect
Plaintiff

After a three-day trial, the jury found that Plaintiff had
been arrested without probable cause and subjected to unreasonable

10

force, and awarded Plaintiff $900,000.00 in compensatory damages.

11

Plaintiff later accepted a remittitur in the sum of $500,000.

12

Plaintiff now moves for attorneys’ fees and costs.

13

II.

14

Legal Standard
A district court may, in its discretion, award a reasonable

15

attorney’s fee to the prevailing party in Section 1983 litigation.

16

42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

17

should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special

18

circumstances would render such an award unjust.”

19

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 4429 (1983) (internal quotation marks

20

omitted).

21

alteration of the legal relationship between the parties that

22

modifies the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits

23

the plaintiff.

24

Under Section 1988, “a prevailing plaintiff

Hensley v.

A plaintiff “prevails” when there is a material

See Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 111-12 (1992).

The “starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable

25

fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation

26

multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.”

27

Courts should exclude hours that were not reasonably expended from

28

the initial fee calculation.

Id. at 434.
2

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.

There is a strong

1

presumption that the resulting “lodestar” figure represents a

2

reasonable fee.

3

(9th Cir. 1987).

4

considerations “may lead the district court to adjust the fee

5

upward or downward.”

6

considerations is “the important factor of the ‘results obtained.’”

7

Id.; see also id. at n.9 (suggesting that many factors are often

8

subsumed within the initial calculation of hours reasonably

9

expended at a reasonable hourly rate).

10
11

Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262
After calculating the lodestar, other

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.

Among those other

III. Discussion
One of Defendants’ primary objections to the fees sought is

12

that Plaintiff seeks fees related to the motion for summary

13

judgment, even though the court ruled in favor of Defendants with

14

respect to that motion.

15

necessarily limited to work performed on successful claims.

16

plaintiff who is unsuccessful at a stage of litigation that was a

17

necessary step to her ultimate victory is entitled to attorney’s

18

fees even for the unsuccessful stage.”

19

Angeles, 935 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). See also Hensley, 461

20

U.S. at 435 (“A plaintiff who has won substantial relief should not

21

have attorney's fee reduced simply because the district court did

22

not adopt each contention raised.”).

23

Attorney’s fees, however, are not
“A

Cabrales v. County of Los

The Hensley Court established a two part analysis for

24

determining attorney’s fees where plaintiff has prevailed on some

25

claims but not others.

26

the court must decide whether the successful and unsuccessful

27

claims are related.

28

relatedness, related claims involve “a common core of facts” or are

See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434-35.

First,

Though there is no “precise” test of

3

1

“based on related legal theories.”

2

802 F.2d 1131, 1141 (9th Cir. 1986).

3

hours spent on unsuccessful, unrelated claims should be excluded in

4

considering the amount of a reasonable fee. Hensley, 461 U.S. at

5

440.

6

claims shared a common core of facts with his successful excessive

7

force claim.

8
9

Thorne v. City of El Segundo,
If the claims are unrelated,

Here, there is no question that Plaintiff’s unsuccessful

The court therefore must, on the second step of the Hensley
analysis, evaluate the “significance of the overall relief obtained

10

by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended on

11

the litigation.”

12

obtained ‘excellent results,’ full compensation may be appropriate,

13

but if only ‘partial or limited success’ was obtained, full

14

compensation may be excessive.”

15

1986).1

16

excellent results on his surviving claim and overall, as he

17

obtained a jury verdict in his favor and a sizable award of

18

damages.

19

court ordered it remitted to $500,000.

20

Given Plaintiff’s success, the court concludes that he is entitled

21

to fees at a reasonable rate for reasonable hours expended on even

22

his unsuccessful claims.

23

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435.

“If the plaintiff

Thorne, 802 F.2d at 1141 (9th Cir.

There can be little doubt that Plaintiff obtained

Indeed, the jury’s damages award was so large that this
(Dkt. 134 at 6.)

The court must then determine the lodestar product of

24

reasonable hours at a reasonable rate.

25

the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting

“[T]he fee applicant bears

26
1

27
28

The term “full compensation” refers not to the amount sought
as attorneys’ fees, but rather to the lodestar product of
reasonable hours at a reasonable rate. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at
436.
4

1

the appropriate hours expended . . . and should maintain billing

2

time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to

3

identify distinct claims.”

4

the court finds the documentation submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel

5

adequate.

6

specificity of the records provided and the reasonableness of the

7

hours expended, with certain exceptions, as follow.

8
9

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437.

In general,

The court overrules Defendants’ objections regarding the

With respect to Mr. Conlogue, the court finds the hours billed
in connection with Defendants’ successful summary judgment motion

10

excessive.

11

of time on those matters.

12

finds the amount of time spent practicing cross examination

13

excessive, and subtracts the twenty-five hours expended for that

14

purpose.

15

sufficient to prepare cross examinations of the Defendants, rather

16

than the 23.1 hours sought.

17

spent drafting a timeline of a short surveillance video to be

18

excessive, and that 0.8 hours would have sufficed.

19

court finds $592.51 in out of pocket costs untimely submitted.

20

With respect to Mr. Beck, 0.3 of the hours billed appear to be

21

unrelated to this matter.

22

agreeing to an extension of time and noting a new appearance on

23

behalf of Defendants to be unreasonable.

24

Mr. Beck unreasonably billed, after he no longer represented

25

Plaintiff, for 1.7 hours of work unrelated to the determination of

26

his fees.

27
28

The court finds thirty hours a reasonable expenditure
With respect to Mr. Avina, the court

The court also finds that 10 hours would have been

The court further finds the 1.8 hours

Lastly, the

The court also finds 0.4 hours spent

It further appears that

As to the determination of a reasonable rate for the work
performed, it is Plaintiff’s burden to show that the hourly rates
5

1

his counsel seeks are in line with the rates charged for similar

2

services by attorneys in this district of comparable skill,

3

experience, and reputation.

4

751 F.3d 1096, 1110-11 (9th Cir. 2014).

5

that $700 per hour is an appropriate hourly rate for Mr. Beck.

6

The court is not convinced, however, that $530 per hour is a

7

reasonable rate for Mr. Avina.

8

to this case has been criminal defense, and his experience in the

9

civil rights arena appears limited.

See Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles,
The court is satisfied

The focus of Mr. Avina’s work prior

Further, this was Mr. Avina’s

10

first federal jury trial.

11

hour a more appropriate rate.

12

himself well in this case, but was approximately two years out of

13

law school and was participating in his first federal trial.

14

Accordingly, the court grants Mr. Conlogue fees at a rate of $275

15

per hour, rather than the $350 he seeks.

16

court that the prevailing rate for paralegal work is $125 per hour,

17

not the $250 per hour that counsel seek.

18

North America, LLC, No. CV 11-7667 PSG, 2014 WL 4090564 at *16

19

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014).

20

IV. Conclusion

21

Accordingly, the court finds $400 per
Mr. Conlogue, similarly, acquitted

It further appears to the

See Aarons v. BMW of

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney

22

Fees and Costs is GRANTED, in part.

23

expended 369.6 hours at $275 per hour, plus 8.9 paralegal work

24

hours at $125 per hour, plus $116.70 in out-of-pocket costs, for a

25

total of $102,869.20.

26

$400 per hour, plus 5.5 paralegal hours at $125 per hour, plus $753

27

in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of of $83,320.

28

reasonably expended 103.4 hours at $700 per hour, plus $5,735.42 in

Mr. Conlogue reasonably

Mr. Avina reasonably expended 204.7 hours at

6

Mr. Beck

1

out-of-pocket costs, for a total of $78,115.42.2

2

a grand total of $264,304.62 in attorneys’ fees and unreimbursed

3

expenses.

The court awards

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: February 24, 2016
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

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

2

Although Mr. Beck’s records were sufficiently clear and
detailed to satisfy his burden, the court notes that he did not
provide a total of his number of hours worked.
7