1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ALLEN LECAIN, Case No.: 2:22-cv-7348-DDP-JPRx 14 ws Petitioner, ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S 15 MOTION TO CONFIRM FINAL 16 Vv. ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR FURTHER ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 17 NABORS COMPLETION & COSTS 18 PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 19 corporation 20 [Dkt. 20] Respondent. 21 22 23 Presently before the court is Petitioner Allen LeCain’s (“LeCain”) Petition to 24 || Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and to Ente 25 || Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. 26 || (“Nabors”). (Dkt. 20.) Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court adopts the 27 || following Order. 28 || ///
|| BACKGROUND > LeCain performed oil well plug and abandonment work for Nabors in the Port of 3 Long Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge. (See Dkt. 4 || 20-10.) On April 2, 2015, former Nabors employees who performed similar work on the 5 || Project filed a putative class action in state court against Nabors for violations under the 6 || California Labor Code, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, 7 including LeCain. (Dkt. 20-1, Donahoo Decl. {.3.) Nabors removed the action to this g || Court, and thereafter filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties’ 9 arbitration agreement. (Id. [] 5-6.) This Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. 19 || dd.) Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (id. The Ninth Circuit reversed and 11 || remanded the court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. (Id. {[ 12.) 12 On March 30, 2018, LeCain submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, 13 || asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages 14. || (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. 15 || Code § 203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 16 || 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). (Id. [ 13, Ex. D.) 17 || Thereafter, the Honorable Franz E. Miller (Ret.) was appointed as arbitrator 18 || (“Arbitrator”). (Id. {| 19; Ex. F.) 19 On January 25, 2022, the matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration hearing on 20 || damages. (Id. J 23.) On April 4, 2022, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration 21 || Award. (Id. Ex. H.)) 22 On August 23, 2022, LeCain filed a motion to set the amount of attorney’s fees and 23 || costs with the Arbitrator. (Id. { 24.) On October 5, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a Final 24 || Arbitration Award granting LeCain’s attorney’s fees claim, without awarding an 25 || additional multiplier. (Id.; Ex. I) Through the Final Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator 26 || awarded LeCain unpaid wages of in the amount of $86,579.10, interest thereof through 27 || January 24, 2022, in the amount of $75,642.05, continuing interest from January 25, 2022, 28
1 || atarate of $23.72 per day until all wages are paid, attorney’s fees in the amount of > $160,493, and costs in the amount of $4,284. (Id.) 3 LeCain now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $10,360.50 ir 4 || post-award attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this 5 confirmation action. (Mot. at 10; Donahoo Decl. [J 37, 45.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 8 Under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), upon application by a g || party for an order confirming an arbitration award, “the court must grant such an order 19 || unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11” of 11 || the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award, while § 11 names 12 || those for modifying or correcting one.” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 13, || 576, 582 (2008). 14 The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are “limited” and “exclusive.” 15 || Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 || “Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal 17 || court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in this 18 || regard.” Id. As relevant here, Section 10 of the FAA permits vacatur where “the 19 || arbitrators exceeded their powers... 9U.S.C.§ 10. Arbitrators “exceed their powers” 20 || “not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the 21 || award is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” Id. at 997 22 || (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To vacate an arbitration award on [the 23 || ground of manifest disregard of the law], ‘[i]t must be clear from the record that the 24 || arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.’” Biller v. Toyota Motor 25 || Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 665 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at 26 || Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2010)). 27 B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 28
1 An employee who prevails in a civil action pursuant to California Labor Code > Sections 1194(a) and 226(e) is entitled to recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees 3 and costs. See Cal. Lab. Code § 1194(a) (“[A]ny employee receiving less than the legal 4 || minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is 5 entitled to recover ... reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”); Cal. Lab. Code § 6 || 226(e) (“An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by 7 || an employer to comply with [Section 226(a)] . . . is entitled to an award of costs and g || reasonable attorney’s fees.”). 9 Once a party has established that it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, □□□□□ 19 || remains for the district court to determine what fee is reasonable.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 11 || 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The “starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable 12 || fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a 13 || reasonable hourly rate.” Id. This is called the “lodestar” method. The fee applicant mus 14 || submit evidence of the hours worked and the rates claimed. Although the fee applicant 15 || bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documentation of the 16 || appropriate hours expended and hourly rates, a prevailing party “is not required to 17 || record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended.” Id. at 437 n.12. The 18 || prevailing party seeking attorneys’ fees need only “identify the general subject matter of 19 || his time expenditures” to meet its burden of establishing its fee request is reasonable. Id. 20 || This limited obligation reflects the broader policy that a “request for attorney’s fees 21 || should not result in a second major litigation.” Id. at 437. 22 || II. DISCUSSION 23 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 24 Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law 25 || through several alleged errors with respect to Nabors’ liability and damages. (Dkt. 20, 26 || Opp. at 1-2.) Specifically, Nabors argues that the Arbitrator erred in the following: 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 ALLEN LECAIN, Case No.: 2:22-cv-7348-DDP-JPRx 14 ws Petitioner, ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S 15 MOTION TO CONFIRM FINAL 16 Vv. ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR FURTHER ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 17 NABORS COMPLETION & COSTS 18 PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 19 corporation 20 [Dkt. 20] Respondent. 21 22 23 Presently before the court is Petitioner Allen LeCain’s (“LeCain”) Petition to 24 || Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and to Ente 25 || Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. 26 || (“Nabors”). (Dkt. 20.) Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court adopts the 27 || following Order. 28 || ///
|| BACKGROUND > LeCain performed oil well plug and abandonment work for Nabors in the Port of 3 Long Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge. (See Dkt. 4 || 20-10.) On April 2, 2015, former Nabors employees who performed similar work on the 5 || Project filed a putative class action in state court against Nabors for violations under the 6 || California Labor Code, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, 7 including LeCain. (Dkt. 20-1, Donahoo Decl. {.3.) Nabors removed the action to this g || Court, and thereafter filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties’ 9 arbitration agreement. (Id. [] 5-6.) This Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. 19 || dd.) Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (id. The Ninth Circuit reversed and 11 || remanded the court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. (Id. {[ 12.) 12 On March 30, 2018, LeCain submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, 13 || asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages 14. || (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. 15 || Code § 203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 16 || 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). (Id. [ 13, Ex. D.) 17 || Thereafter, the Honorable Franz E. Miller (Ret.) was appointed as arbitrator 18 || (“Arbitrator”). (Id. {| 19; Ex. F.) 19 On January 25, 2022, the matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration hearing on 20 || damages. (Id. J 23.) On April 4, 2022, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration 21 || Award. (Id. Ex. H.)) 22 On August 23, 2022, LeCain filed a motion to set the amount of attorney’s fees and 23 || costs with the Arbitrator. (Id. { 24.) On October 5, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a Final 24 || Arbitration Award granting LeCain’s attorney’s fees claim, without awarding an 25 || additional multiplier. (Id.; Ex. I) Through the Final Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator 26 || awarded LeCain unpaid wages of in the amount of $86,579.10, interest thereof through 27 || January 24, 2022, in the amount of $75,642.05, continuing interest from January 25, 2022, 28
1 || atarate of $23.72 per day until all wages are paid, attorney’s fees in the amount of > $160,493, and costs in the amount of $4,284. (Id.) 3 LeCain now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $10,360.50 ir 4 || post-award attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this 5 confirmation action. (Mot. at 10; Donahoo Decl. [J 37, 45.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 8 Under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), upon application by a g || party for an order confirming an arbitration award, “the court must grant such an order 19 || unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11” of 11 || the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award, while § 11 names 12 || those for modifying or correcting one.” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 13, || 576, 582 (2008). 14 The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are “limited” and “exclusive.” 15 || Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 || “Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal 17 || court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in this 18 || regard.” Id. As relevant here, Section 10 of the FAA permits vacatur where “the 19 || arbitrators exceeded their powers... 9U.S.C.§ 10. Arbitrators “exceed their powers” 20 || “not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the 21 || award is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” Id. at 997 22 || (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To vacate an arbitration award on [the 23 || ground of manifest disregard of the law], ‘[i]t must be clear from the record that the 24 || arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.’” Biller v. Toyota Motor 25 || Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 665 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at 26 || Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2010)). 27 B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 28
1 An employee who prevails in a civil action pursuant to California Labor Code > Sections 1194(a) and 226(e) is entitled to recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees 3 and costs. See Cal. Lab. Code § 1194(a) (“[A]ny employee receiving less than the legal 4 || minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is 5 entitled to recover ... reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”); Cal. Lab. Code § 6 || 226(e) (“An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by 7 || an employer to comply with [Section 226(a)] . . . is entitled to an award of costs and g || reasonable attorney’s fees.”). 9 Once a party has established that it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, □□□□□ 19 || remains for the district court to determine what fee is reasonable.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 11 || 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The “starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable 12 || fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a 13 || reasonable hourly rate.” Id. This is called the “lodestar” method. The fee applicant mus 14 || submit evidence of the hours worked and the rates claimed. Although the fee applicant 15 || bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documentation of the 16 || appropriate hours expended and hourly rates, a prevailing party “is not required to 17 || record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended.” Id. at 437 n.12. The 18 || prevailing party seeking attorneys’ fees need only “identify the general subject matter of 19 || his time expenditures” to meet its burden of establishing its fee request is reasonable. Id. 20 || This limited obligation reflects the broader policy that a “request for attorney’s fees 21 || should not result in a second major litigation.” Id. at 437. 22 || II. DISCUSSION 23 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 24 Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law 25 || through several alleged errors with respect to Nabors’ liability and damages. (Dkt. 20, 26 || Opp. at 1-2.) Specifically, Nabors argues that the Arbitrator erred in the following: 27 28
1 (1) rejecting, and not giving any deference to, the Labor Commissioner’s decision that Nabors’ subject work in the [Port of 2 Long Beach] was “not within the jurisdiction of California Public 3 Work Law” and therefore exempt from [California Labor Code § 1720, et seq.]; and (2) deeming the subject work as a public work and 4 awarding [LeCain’s] prevailing wages even though there are no 5 prevailing wage rates—or applicable classifications—established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) for [LeCain’s] oil field 6 work. 7 (Id.) 8 Nabors, however, fails to identify any instances in the record where the Arbitrator 9 “recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.” See Biller, 668 F.3d at 665. The 10 alleged errors are based on misinterpretation or misapplication of the law —such legal 11 errors are insufficient to vacate an Arbitration Award. “The risk that arbitrators may 12 construe the governing law imperfectly in the course of delivering a decision that 13 attempts in good faith to interpret the relevant law, or may make errors with respect to 14 the evidence on which they base their rulings, is a risk that every party to arbitration 15 assumes, and such legal and factual errors lie far outside the category of conduct 16 Vv embraced by § 10(a)(4).” Kyocera, 341 F.3d at 1003. Finding no manifest disregard of the
8 law exhibited in the Arbitration Award, the court declines to vacate the Arbitration Award. 19 30 The court therefore grants LeCain’s Petition to confirm the Arbitration Award.
B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
39 As the prevailing party in this action, LeCain is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ 33 fees and costs, including fees incurred in connection with the confirmation action. See Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194(a), 226(e).! Thus, the only issue before the court is whether the
25 26 || | Nabors contends, as it did in the related confirmation actions, see, e.g., Ridgeway v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., No. 15-cv-3436-DDP-JPR, 2021 WL 2646902 27 at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2021), Ridgeway v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., 28
1 requested fees and costs are reasonable. > LeCain seeks $10,360.50 in attorneys’ fees. The court finds, and Nabors does not 3 dispute, that the rates set forth by LeCain’s counsel are within the range of reasonable 4 || tates for attorneys in the local community, taking into consideration the “experience, 5 skill, and reputation of the attorney.” Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 908 (9th Cir. 1995). Specifically, the court finds that the following rates are 6 P y. 7 || reasonable: e Richard E. Donahoo, Attorney; $700/hour 8 e Sarah L. Kokonas, Attorney: $495/hour 9 e Kelsey Ung, Senior Paralegal: $295/hour 10 With respect to the time spent for work performed on this matter, LeCain’s 11 counsel has submitted detailed billing records of work performed and an accompanying 12 declaration. (See Donahoo Decl. I] 37-39; 42-44 & Ex. J.) LeCain’s motion and Richard 13 Donahoo’s declaration estimate that counsel spent a total of 16.2 hours on tasks related tc 14 the post-award confirmation action. (Mot. at 15; Donahoo Decl. 37.) Of these hours, 15 LeCain claims that 9.3 hours are attributable to Richard Donahoo, 3 hours are attributable 16 Vv to Sarah Kokonas, 0.9 hours are attributable to Kelsey Ung, and 3.0 hours are attributable
8 to time Richard Donahoo anticipated he would spend preparing a reply and anticipated 19 judgment. (Mot. at 15-16; Donahoo Decl. {' 37-39, 42-44.) The court has adjusted these
30 hours for reasonableness. Specifically, the court has subtracted 1.7 hours from the
21 22 || No. 15-cv-3436-DDP-JPR, 2021 WL 3184226, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2021), Ronquillo v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., No. 21-cv-5535-DDP-JPR, 2022 WL 370958, 23 || at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021), Gutierrez v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. 24 || Co, 21-cv-8435-DDP-JPR, 2022 WL 671547, at *3 n. 1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2022), and Gibson v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., No. 21-cv-8450-DDP-JPR, 2022 WL 25 1092628, at *3 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2022), that Rosales’s request for post-award fees is 26 || improper. (Opp. at 8.) The court stands by its previous analysis and rulings in the above-referenced matters regarding post-award fees. Accordingly, the issue of post- 27 |! award fees is properly before this Court. 28
1 || amount of time billed by Sara L. Kokonas in connection with the preparation of the > petition and motion to confirm the arbitration award. Given that the court decided to 3 take this matter under submission without a hearing, the court has subtracted 0.8 hours 4 || from the amount of time Richard Donahoo anticipated billing for preparing for and 5 attending the hearing. 6 Applying the approved rates to the adjusted hours, the lodestar method yields the 7 || following result: Lodestar $5050 10 [Kelsey ung sas 0 | 6550 $643 50 2 $5959 13 u With these adjustments, the chart above reflects the reasonable number of hours
15 expended by counsel in relation to the confirmation action and request for post-award 16 fees. Thus, LeCain is entitled to $8,959 in fees and $402 for the cost of filing the 7 complaint. 18 IV. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS LeCain’s Petition to Confirm the 20 Arbitration Award. The Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Hon. Franz E. Miler (Ret.) on April 4, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058930, is confirmed. This Court shall enter judgment in favor of Ruben LeCain and against Nabors in the amount 23 of $86,579.10 in unpaid wages, interest thereof through January 24, 2022, in the amount o $75,642.05, continuing interest from January 25, 2022, at a rate of $23.72 per day until all 95 || wages are paid, attorney’s fees in the amount of $160,493, and costs in the amount of 26 || $4284. 27 28
1 The court further GRANTS LeCain’s request for post-award attorneys’ fees in the > || amount of $8,959 and for costs in the amount of $402. 3 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: May 1, 2023 6 7 , 9 DEAN D. PREGERSON 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28