Salinas et al v. Lavender Investment Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 2/3/12. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2012)

1

** E-filed February 3, 2012 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

APOLONIA SALINAS; et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
v.

No. C09-04541 HRL
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

13
14

LAVENDER INVESTMENT, INC. dba
MA’S RESTAURANT; et al.,

15

Defendants.
____________________________________/

[Re: Docket No. 30]

16
17

Plaintiffs Apolonia Salinas and Faustino Cortez move for an award of attorney’s fees.

18

Plaintiffs’ counsel has submitted a declaration setting forth the fees incurred in this action.

19

This is a wage-and-hour action in which plaintiffs brought suit against their former

20

employer, Lavender Investment, Inc. (“Lavender”) and Tohn Shieh. In November 2010, the

21

plaintiffs each executed a settlement agreement with Lavender. See Dkt. No. 23. Lavender did not

22

satisfy its obligations under the settlement agreements, and the plaintiffs moved for enforcement of

23

the agreements and for fees and costs associated with their efforts to enforce. Dkt. No. 22. This

24

court granted the motion to enforce in its Order of May 4, 2011. Dkt. No. 28. However, as plaintiffs

25

had not submitted any documentation in support of their request for attorney’s fees and costs, the

26

court ordered them to submit documentation sufficient to detail their fees and costs. Id. Plaintiff

27

submitted a supplemental declaration on May 9, 2011. Dkt. No. 30.

28

1

The settlement agreements between plaintiffs and Lavender provide that “[e]ach party, upon

2

breach of this agreement by the other, shall have the right to seek all necessary and proper relief . . .

3

from a court of competent jurisdiction and the party prevailing in such a suit shall be entitled to

4

recover reasonable costs and attorney fees.” Dkt. No. 23, Exh. 8, pp. 5, 11.

5

Plaintiff’s counsel, Adam Pedersen, attests that he spent a total of 5.25 hours working on the

6

motion to enforce the agreements, and seeks $1,207.50 in fees. Dkt. No. 30 ¶¶ 5-6. To determine the

7

appropriate hourly rate, Pedersen used the Laffey Matrix, which is produced by the United States

8

Department of Justice and “designed to provide objective guidance in assessing appropriate hourly

9

rates depending on attorney experience.” San Francisco Baykeeper v. W. Bay Sanitary Dist., 2011

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138093, *21 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011). Pedersen requests that the court award him

11

$230 per hour, the Laffey Matrix’s 2010-2011 hourly rate for attorneys with 1-3 years of

12

experience, which is counsel’s stated experience level. While Pedersen has not provided records or

13

invoices, he does state how and when he spent those hours working on the final settlement

14

agreements, and then, the motion to enforce those agreements. The court finds that the hours worked

15

are reasonable, as is the hourly rate sought.
After due consideration of the reasonableness of the fee request, the court GRANTS

16
17

Plaintiffs’ motion. An award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,207.50 is ORDERED to be

18

paid.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 3, 2012
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

C09-04541 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Adam Wang
Adam Pedersen
Daniel Pyne, III

3
4

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

5
6
7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3