Muan v. Vitug et al

Filing 73

ORDER SETTING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 60 Motion for Attorney Fees.(psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

NELSON MUAN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
NORA VITUG and BENEDIT VITUG,
individually and together d/b/a/ Norbel’s Care
Home,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:13-cv-00331-PSG
ORDER SETTING REASONABLE
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
(Re: Docket No. 60)

The court has before it a motion to determine reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. On

17
18

April 24, 2014, this court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter, which

19

granted Plaintiff Nelson Muan the right to recover these amounts. 1 The appropriateness of this

20

award in and of itself is not in dispute, so all the court is asked to decide is the amount.

21
22

Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act provides that when an employee brings a
successful suit against his or her employer, the court shall “in addition to any judgment awarded to

23
24
25

the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of
the action.” 2 The Supreme Court set forth the legal standard for the reasonableness of such fees in

26
27

1

See Docket No. 55.

28

2

29 U.S.C. § 216.

1
Case No. 5:13-cv-00331-PSG
ORDER SETTING REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

1

Hensley v. Eckerhart. 3 Hensley teaches that the “starting point for determining the amount of a

2

reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a

3

reasonable hourly rate. . . . The party seeking an award of fees should submit evidence supporting

4

the hours worked and rates claimed. Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district

5

court may reduce the award accordingly.” 4

6

Defendants Nora and Benedict Vitug raise five basic challenges to Muan’s requested fees.

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

First, they argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the six hours billed by Phong Truong
for attending a meeting with several other attorneys and Muan himself. 5 The court agrees. That
time will be struck, and the fees requested reduced by $1350 to reflect that adjustment.

11

Second, Defendants claim that all time billed by Huy Tran before the firm’s use of its

12

“toggle system” for tracking time should be struck because it was not contemporaneously

13

recorded. 6 Yet Defendants neither challenge the reasonableness of the fees requested nor present

14
any case law establishing that contemporaneous recordkeeping is per se unreasonable. As
15
16
17

reasonableness is the relevant standard, the request to strike all of Tran’s time before the use of the
toggle system is denied.
Third, Defendants contend that Tran is not entitled to charge an attorney’s hourly rate for

18
19

work that could have been performed by a paralegal during the “Revise Audit.” 7 At the hearing on

20

this matter, Tran explained that he performed the work because it was more efficient than bringing

21

a different person up to speed with the facts of the case and having them complete the task. That

22
may be so, but a concern for efficiency does not transform the work of a paralegal into the work of
23
3

461 U.S. 424 (1983)

4

Id. at 433.

5

See Docket No. 67 at 1

6

See id. at 2

7

See id.

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 5:13-cv-00331-PSG
ORDER SETTING REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

1
2

an attorney. Defendants are correct that the time in question is “best valued at $90 an hour.” 8 The
attorney fees requested will be reduced by $1552.50.
Fourth, Defendants simply assert that the court should strike the ten hours Tran spent

3
4

researching meal and rest break claims. 9 They provide no reason for this request, which seeks to

5

exclude time spent on researching some questions on which Plaintiffs eventually prevailed. 10 The

6

request is denied.

7
Fifth and finally, Defendants seek to exclude all fees billed by Betty Duong because it was

8
9

not contemporaneously recorded, duplicative and, in some instances, excessive in light of the tasks

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

required. 11 As described above, failure to contemporaneously record time is not a bar to

11

compensation for that time. The court also is disinclined to hold that, as a matter of law, it is

12

unreasonably duplicative to have two attorneys at mediation sessions, depositions, meetings, and

13
14

trial; often, there are numerous moving pieces at each of these events, such that having two
attorneys present is more or less required to follow everything. Lastly, while “an experienced

15
16

attorney” may have been able to prepare motions in limine more quickly than Duong, 12 the

17

reasonable hourly rate for such an attorney would also be higher than Duong’s, such that the final

18

fee calculation may not have been significantly different. Defendants’ request to exclude Duong’s

19

fees is denied.

20
21

Defendants shall pay Muan a total of $63,484.50 in attorneys’ fees and $2,936.50 in costs,
resulting in a total of $66,421.00.

22
23
8

Id.

9

See id.

24
25

10

See Docket No. 55 at 11-13.

11

See id. at 2-3.

12

See id. at 3.

26
27
28

3
Case No. 5:13-cv-00331-PSG
ORDER SETTING REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

1
2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 18, 2014

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 5:13-cv-00331-PSG
ORDER SETTING REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS