Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California v. Walker et al

Filing 102

Order by Hon. William H. Orrick granting in part and denying in part 93 Motion for Attorney Fees. The defendants shall pay the Trust Fund $225,072.00 in attorneys' fees and $418.50 in costs (totaling $225,490.50). (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CARPENTERS PENSION TRUST FUND
FOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No. 12-cv-01447-WHO
ORDER RE ATTORNEYS’ FEES

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 94
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

KEITH WALKER, et al.,
Defendants.

12

Plaintiff Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California (“Pension Fund”)

13

prevailed on two motions for summary judgment against the defendants in this case and is entitled

14

to attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2) and 1451(b). Its motion is suitable for

15

disposition without oral argument and I VACATE the March 11, 2015 hearing. Civ. L.R. 7–1(b);

16

FED. R. CIV. P. 78(b). Although its motion for $250,080.00 in attorneys’ fees and $4,250.71 in

17

litigation expenses is unopposed, I am reducing the fees sought by 10% because plaintiff billed for

18

six lawyers to handle a relatively uncomplicated matter, causing inevitable duplication. I am also

19

reducing the costs because plaintiff seeks some that are not allowed under ERISA. The Pension

20

Fund is entitled to $225,072.00 in fees and $418.50 in costs.

21
22

BACKGROUND
The Pension Fund is an employee benefit plan and a multiemployer plan as defined by the

23

Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Order (2) at 1 (Dkt. No. 90).

24

It covers employees in the building and construction industry. Id. at 2. Defendant Keith Walker

25

owned Rollie French Inc. (“RFI”), as well as defendants the Keith Walker Trust dated March 17,

26

1999, the Keith Walker Trust dated May 17, 1999, the Real Estate Leasing Business operated by

27

the Keith Walker Trust, D&B Engineered Applications, Inc. (“D&B”), and K&M Industries

28

(“K&M”). Id. at 1-2. RFI filed for bankruptcy in 2005. Order (1) at 2 (Dkt. No. 75). RFI and the

1

Pension Fund were bound by collective bargaining agreements until 2008, when RFI terminated

2

the agreements. Id. When the Pension Fund notified RFI that it had been assessed withdrawal

3

liability under ERISA of $1,726,467.00, RFI stated that it did not owe withdrawal liability

4

payments and did not pay. Id. The Pension Fund brought the present action against the

5

defendants, and I granted summary judgment on April 17, 2014 and January 16, 2015. See Order

6

(1); Order (2). The Pension Fund moves for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $254,330.71. The

7

defendants did not file an opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD

8
9

Under ERISA, an employer’s failure to pay withdrawal liability payments within the time
prescribed is treated as a delinquent contribution. 29 U.S.C. § 1451(b). A prevailing plaintiff is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

entitled to fees and costs resulting from enforcement of delinquent contributions. 29 U.S.C. §

12

1132(g)(2).

13

District courts use the lodestar method to calculate an award of attorneys’ fees. Under this

14

method, the court “multiplies the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the

15

litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th

16

Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted). A fee award calculated under the lodestar

17

method is generally presumed to be reasonable. Id. at 1208-09. However, the court may adjust

18

this figure “if circumstances warrant . . . to account for other factors which are not subsumed

19

within it.” Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1149 n.4 (9th Cir. 2001).

20

The party seeking an award of fees must establish entitlement to the award and must

21

submit evidence that supports the hours worked and the rates claimed. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461

22

U.S. 424, 433 (1983). “Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district court may

23

reduce the award accordingly.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has stated that a district court may “impose

24

a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent—a ‘haircut’—based on its exercise of discretion and

25

without a more specific explanation.” Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th

26

Cir. 2008). To determine a reasonable fee award under the lodestar method, the court may

27

“exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”

28

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.
2

DISCUSSION

1
2

I. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

3

The first motion for summary judgment addressed control group liability and the

4

defendants’ waiver of defenses by their failure to initiate ERISA’s arbitration procedures. See

5

Order (1) at 6-9. The second motion for summary judgment involved substantially similar issues

6

against different defendants. See Order (2) at 5-9. Although this case was fact-intensive in that it

7

required the Pension Fund to determine Walker’s relationship to multiple corporate entities, the

8

legal analysis was not particularly complex, especially for a law firm that specializes in ERISA

9

matters. I understand that counsel for the Pension Fund encountered some unexpected setbacks in
prosecuting this case--of the two attorneys primarily assigned to the case, one departed from the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

firm and the other suffered a personal tragedy, preventing both from drafting the first motion for

12

summary judgment. Mot. at 5 (Dkt. No. 93). Still and all, plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable fee

13

for work needed for the case, not for compensation for every moment a lawyer spent on it if the

14

work was duplicative, inefficient or unnecessary.

15

It was not reasonable to employ six attorneys, three of whom have over 20 years of

16

experience, to work on this matter. The fees motion reflects a substantial amount of hours billed

17

by multiple experienced attorneys on matters that could have been accomplished by less senior

18

attorneys. See Hernandez v. Grullense, No. 12-CV-03257-WHO, 2014 WL 1724356, at *8 (N.D.

19

Cal. Apr. 30, 2014) (“in light of [his] specialized knowledge and his commensurately high billing

20

rate, [counsel] should reasonably limit his involvement to matters requiring his level of skill”).

21

The number of attorneys working on this matter created an unnecessary amount of time billed for

22

conferencing and strategizing. Id. at *10. Nor do I understand why it took four lawyers to draft

23

the motion for summary judgment.

24

Based upon my detailed review of the Pension Fund’s billing records, I find that a 10%

25

reduction in the requested attorneys’ fees is appropriate to account for the overstaffing of this case.

26

See Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1112. I therefore reduce the lodestar amount recoverable by the Pension

27

Fund to $225,072.00.

28
3

1

II. COSTS
The Pension Fund requests $4,250.71 in litigation expenses, including parking and

2
attorney travel to attend court hearings, electronic research, fax filing for service of summons,
3
overnight delivery, copying fees, and postage. Mot. at 7. The Ninth Circuit has held that costs
4
provided to a prevailing party under the relevant sections of ERISA are limited to costs allowed
5
under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Agredano v. Mut. of Omaha Companies, 75 F.3d 541, 544 (9th Cir.
6
1996); Bonilla v. KDH Backhoe Serv., Inc., No. C05-3259 EMC, 2007 WL 39307, at *2 (N.D.
7
Cal. Jan. 4, 2007). As opposed to the recovery of costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 or 16 U.S.C. §
8
1540, this statute does not include costs for postage, electronic research, overnight delivery, or
9
attorney travel. See Good Earth Corp. v. M.D. Horton & Associates, No. C-94-3455-CAL, 1997
10

WL 702297, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 1997) aff’d sub nom. Good Earth Corp. v. M.D. Horton &

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Associates, 156 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Bonilla, 2007 WL 39307, at *3; Ferreira v.
12
M/V CCNI ANTOFAGASTA, No. 204-CV-1916-MCE-DAD, 2007 WL 3034941, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
13

Oct. 16, 2007). Therefore, the Pension Fund’s recovery of litigation expenses is limited to those

14
related to service of summons ($64.75) and copying ($353.75), or $418.50.
15
CONCLUSION
16
17

The Trust Fund’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part. The defendants shall pay the Trust Fund $225,072.00 in attorneys’ fees and $418.50 in

18
costs (totaling $225,490.50).
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
Dated: March 9, 2015
21
22
23

______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
4