Unite Here! Local 19 v. Sutter's Place, Inc.

Filing 44

ORDER granting attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Whyte on 11/11/2011. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/11/2011)

1
2
3
4

E-FILED on 11/11/2011

5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

UNITE HERE! LOCAL 19,

13

No. C 11-02608 RMW

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS' FEES

14

v.

15

SUTTER'S PLACE, INC., dba BAY 101,

16

Defendant.

[Re Docket Nos. 7, 9, 34]
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

On August 26, 2011, the court granted plaintiff Unite Here! Local 19's ("Local 19") motion
to confirm the arbitration award and compel arbitration of disputed issues and for reasonable
attorneys' fees incurred in bringing the issue regarding implementation of the award before the
arbitrator. The court requested that Local 19 revise its fee request to provide information regarding
the specific services rendered, the dates on which they were rendered, and the hourly rates charged
so that the court could determine whether the amount requested is reasonable and limited to the
petition before this court. Although defendant continues to object that Local 19 has not provided

25
detailed time records, the court find that the Exhibit D has provided the requisite clarity.
26
Defendant also objects that plaintiff has not provided adequate justification for the hourly
27
28

rates requested, and in particular has not justified the requested hourly rate of $395 for Jannah
Manansala, a fourth year associate who generated the vast majority of fees in this case. Plaintiff
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS' FEES—No. C 11-02608 RMW
MEC

1

asserts that hourly rate is within the range of rates for attorneys and paralegals with comparable

2

experience in labor and employment litigation and to a previous state court determination that $285

3

was a reasonable hourly rate for Ms. Manansala in 2009. Plaintiff also cites the Laffey Matrix to

4

support the requested hourly rate. Defendant is correct that the court must use the rate prevailing in

5

the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and

6

reputation, and not the Laffey Matrix. See Perez v. Cozen & O'Connor Group Long Term Disability

7

Coverage, 2007 WL 2142292, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2007). The court finds that a reasonable hourly rate

8

for Ms. Manasala is $350. The other requested rates are reasonable.

9

Defendant also objects to a number of specific time entries, including time spent to meet and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

confer regarding service of the petition, time spent reviewing local rules, time spent on an

11

administrative motion to determine if case should be related, travel time, and time for submitting the

12

clarifying declaration concerning fees and costs. The court will not reduce the fee award based on

13

these objections because the time spent appears have been reasonable.

14

For the foregoing reasons, the court award Local 19 $18,610 in attorneys' fees.

15
16
17
18
19
20

DATED:

11/11/2011
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS' FEES—No. C 11-02608 RMW
MEC
2