Hernandez et al v. Martinez et al
Filing
33
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 28 Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice; denying 31 Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice. (lhklc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
JESUS HERNANDEZ, JORGE
HERNANDEZ, ANA KAREN MUNOZ,
and JESUS SANTOS,
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16
17
FIDEL MARTINEZ, LUCILLA ANN
MARTINEZ, and ZENTIRAM FINISHING
INC.,
18
Defendants.
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 12-CV-06133-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
20
Plaintiffs Jesus Hernandez, Jorge Hernandez, Ana Karen Munoz (“Munoz”), and Jesus
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Santos (“Santos”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Fidel Martinez, Lucilla Ann
Martinez, and Zentiram Finishing Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking damages arising from
Defendants’ failure to pay overtime and minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act (“FLSA”) and California wage orders and statutes. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiffs, who are Defendants’ former employees, for overtime wages and minimum
wages.
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-06133-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants Fidel Martinez and Lucilla Ann Martinez
2
(collectively, “Martinez Defendants”) on December 4, 2012. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). On February
3
1, 2013, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Zentiram Finishing Inc. (“Zentiram”). ECF No.
4
8 (“First Amended Complaint”). 1 Plaintiffs subsequently received notice that Defendant Zentiram
5
had entered bankruptcy proceedings, and filed a notice of stay as to Defendant Zentiram on March
6
4, 2013. ECF No. 16. At Plaintiffs’ request, the Clerk of the Court entered default as to the
7
Martinez Defendants on March 6, 2013. ECF No. 19. Default was not requested or entered as to
8
Zentiram Finishing Inc.
9
On June 10, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Default Judgment against the Martinez
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants (“Plaintiffs’ June 2013 Motion”). ECF No. 28 (“Pls.’ June 2013 Mot.”). This Motion
11
was originally before the Honorable Paul S. Grewal, and was subsequently transferred to the
12
undersigned judge on July 16, 2013. ECF No. 30. On October 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed another
13
Motion for Default Judgment against the Martinez Defendants (“Plaintiffs’ October 2013
14
Motion”). ECF No. 31 (“Pls.’ Oct. 2013 Mot.”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
15
finds Plaintiffs’ June 2013 Motion and Plaintiffs’ October 2013 Motion (collectively, “Plaintiffs’
16
Motions”) appropriate for determination without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for
17
February 27, 2014, is VACATED. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ Motions are
18
DENIED without prejudice.
19
First, the contents of Plaintiffs’ June 2013 Motion inexplicably differ from Plaintiffs’
20
October 2013 Motion. For example, the Court notes that, in the October 2013 Motion, Plaintiffs’
21
statement of Jesus Santos’s unpaid wages do not correspond to Plaintiffs’ requested amount for
22
Jesus Santos’s unpaid wages. In Plaintiffs’ October 2013 Motion, Plaintiffs state that Jesus Santos
23
is owed $6,942.75 in unpaid wages. Pls.’ Oct. 2013 Mot. at 11. However, later in the Motion,
24
Plaintiffs request $7,310.25 for Jesus Santos’s unpaid wages. Pls.’ Oct. 2013 Mot. at 14. Plaintiffs
25
do not explain the discrepancies in these amounts.
26
27
1
28
Plaintiffs initially moved for default judgment against the Martinez Defendants on February 22,
2013. ECF No. 15. However, Plaintiffs withdrew their motion on March 5, 2013. ECF No. 17.
2
Case No.: 12-CV-06133-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
Moreover, the total requested amounts for Jesus Santos and Jorge Hernandez in Plaintiffs’
2
June 2013 Motion differ from the total requested amounts for Jesus Santos and Jorge Hernandez in
3
Plaintiffs’ October 2013 Motion, despite the fact that the underlying calculations for damages
4
remain identical. Compare Pls.’ June 2013 Motion at 15 with Pls.’ October 2013 Motion at 13-14.
5
Specifically, in Plaintiffs’ June 2013 Motion, Plaintiffs’ total requested amount for Jesus Santos
6
was $14,281.43. See Pls.’ June 2013 Mot. at 15. However, in Plaintiffs’ October 2013 Motion,
7
Plaintiffs’ total requested amount for Jesus Santos was $14,891.81. See Pls.’ Oct. 2013 Mot. at 14.
8
In Plaintiffs’ June 2013 Motion, Plaintiffs’ total requested amount for Jorge Hernandez was
9
$11,825.58. See Pls.’ June 2013 Mot. at 15. However, in Plaintiffs’ October 2013 Motion,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiffs’ total requested amount for Jorge Hernandez was $11,826.17. See Pls.’ Oct. 2013 Mot. at
11
13.
12
Despite these discrepancies, the total requested amount for all Plaintiffs is the same for
13
Plaintiffs’ June 2013 Motion and Plaintiffs’ October 2013 Motion ($113,026.37). Compare Pls.’
14
June 2013 Motion at 15 with Pls.’ October 2013 Motion at 14.
15
Additionally, the Court is skeptical of some of Plaintiffs’ calculations. Particularly,
16
Plaintiffs assert that Jesus Santos is owed $124.25 in penalties for minimum wage violations under
17
California Labor Code § 1194.2. The $124.25 amount was based on multiplying all of the hours
18
Jesus Santos worked when he was paid $7.75 by $.25—the difference between Jesus Santos’s
19
actual wage rate ($7.75) and the minimum wage rate under California law ($8.00). See Decl. of
20
Huy Tran in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Default Judgment (“Tran Decl.”) at 10, ECF Nos. 28-6 and 31-
21
6. Thus, the $124.25 divided by .25 is 497, which represents the total number of hours Jesus
22
Santos worked below minimum wage. The documents show that Santos worked for 43 weeks
23
below minimum wage. See Tran Decl. Ex. F, ECF Nos. 28-12 and 31-12. Thus, 497 hours divided
24
by 43 weeks would mean that Jesus Santos worked only 11.56 hours per week.
25
However, Jesus Santos alleges in his declaration that he worked at least 47 hours a week
26
during the 43 weeks that he worked and was paid below minimum wage. See Decl. Jesus Santos in
27
Supp. Pls.’ Mot. for Default Judgment at 2, ECF Nos. 28-5 and 31-5. Thus, according to Jesus
28
Santos’s declaration, he worked a total number of at least 2,021 hours (47 hours times 43 weeks)
3
Case No.: 12-CV-06133-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
when he was paid below minimum wage. Yet multiplying all of the hours Jesus Santos worked
2
when he was paid below minimum wage by .25 would be $505.25—not $124.25 as Plaintiffs
3
contend. As a result of the above, the Court lacks confidence in the accuracy of the numbers
4
presented in Plaintiffs’ Motions.
5
Finally, with regard to attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to
6
$14,475.00. Tran Decl. at 11. Courts in the Ninth Circuit calculate an award of attorneys' fees
7
using the lodestar method, whereby a court multiplies “the number of hours the prevailing party
8
reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin.,
9
Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The fee applicant bears
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the burden of demonstrating that the number of hours spent were “reasonably expended” and that
11
counsel made “a good faith effort to exclude from [the] fee request hours that are excessive,
12
redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S. Ct. 1933,
13
76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983). A party seeking attorney’s fees bears the burden of demonstrating that the
14
rates requested are “in line with the prevailing market rate of the relevant community.’” Carson v.
15
Billings Police Dep't, 470 F.3d 889, 891 (9th Cir. 2006). Generally, “the relevant community is the
16
forum in which the district court sits.” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (citing Barjon v. Dalton, 132
17
F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1997)).
18
In this case, Plaintiffs’ counsel Tomas Margain bills at $425 per hour and has expended 10
19
hours in the case. Id. Further, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Huy Ngoc Tran, billed at $75 per hour while a
20
law clerk and expended two hours in the case as a law clerk. Id. Now, as an attorney, Tran bills at
21
$200 per hour and has expended fifty hours in the case as an attorney. Id. But these hourly rates
22
and these numbers of hours expended only yield a lodestar of $14,400—not $14,475 as Plaintiffs
23
contend. Further, Plaintiffs do not show how the number of hours were “reasonably expended.”
24
Plaintiffs merely state the number of hours each attorney expended, but Plaintiffs do not set forth a
25
detailed breakdown of what the attorney did to expend those hours. See Tran Decl. at 11. Indeed,
26
Plaintiffs did not attach detailed billing records to support the claimed number of hours expended.
27
Therefore, the Court cannot verify whether Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hours were reasonably expended.
28
4
Case No.: 12-CV-06133-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
1
Moreover, Plaintiffs do not establish that the Plaintiffs’ counsel’s rates were “reasonable
2
hourly rates.” Plaintiffs only state each attorney’s hourly rate without any evidence from which the
3
Court can determine whether the claimed rates are reasonable and in line with those prevailing in
4
the community for similar services. Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether
5
the fees sought are reasonable. Accordingly, the request for attorney’s fees must be denied without
6
prejudice.
7
Plaintiffs’ Motions against the Martinez Defendants are DENIED with leave to amend
within 30 days of this Order. In any amended motion, Plaintiffs shall clarify the discrepancies in
9
the previous numbers presented and clearly explain all requested damages in table form with an
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
identification of the source of each number and the method of each calculation. With regard to
11
attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs shall include detailed breakdown of the hours expended by each attorney
12
in the case and information to establish the reasonableness of each attorney’s hourly rates.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: February 26, 2014
________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No.: 12-CV-06133-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?