Board of Trustees of the California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust v. Streamline Integration

Opinion

10! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 | BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CV 21—08301-RSWL-KESx | GREIFORNAFROWTIONERS | oposR se: ORION FOR AL ATTORNEYS’ FEES [26] 14 15 Plaintiff, 16 Vv. 17 | STREAMLINE INTEGRATION, 18 Defendant. 19 |--— 20 In accordance with the Court’s Order Granting 21 | Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for 22 | Attorneys’ Fees. In the prior Order, the Court found 23 | that Plaintiffs were entitled to Attorneys’ Fees. See 241 Dkt. No. 24 at 12. The Motion is unopposed. The Court 25 | GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion. 26 “The most useful starting point for determining the 27 | amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours 28

1 reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a

2 reasonable hourly rate,” which is known as the lodestar

3 calculation. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 4 (1983). A district court may consider any of the 5 following twelve factors in adjusting an award: (1) the 6 time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty 7 of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to 8 perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion 9 of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of 10 the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is 11 fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the 12 client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and 13 the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, 14 and ability of the attorneys; (10) the ‘undesirability’ 15 of the case; (11) the nature and length of the 16 professional relationship with the client; and 17 (12) awards in similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Extras 18 Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). Here, 19 none of these factors necessitate an adjustment of the 20 lodestar calculation. 21 Plaintiffs request an award of $43,761.13 in 22 attorneys’ fees, which is the total number of hours 23 worked by attorneys on the matter multiplied by the 24 billing rates for each respective attorney. Pls.’ Mem. 25 of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for Atty’s Fees, ECF No. 26- 26 1. 27 The Court finds that the billing rates, which range 28 from $290 to $240 per hour, are reasonable. Id. 1 at 4:16; see Trustees of the S. California IBEW-NECA

2 Pension Plan v. Pro Tech Eng’g Corp.,

3 No. SACV150637DOCEX, 2016 WL 3453014, at *5–6 (C.D. Cal. 4 June 20, 2016) (finding hourly rates ranging from $240 5 to $270 per hour reasonable); Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. 6 Co., 480 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding typical 7 market rate for experienced ERISA attorney ranged from 8 $375 to $400 per hour). 9 Plaintiffs request compensation for 140.1 hours of 10 work by the attorneys that worked on this case. Upon 11 review of the attorneys’ time entries, the Court finds 12 the hours worked were not excessive nor unrelated to the 13 resolution of the instant Action. Accordingly, the 14 Court awards $43,761.13 in attorneys’ fees. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 DATED: May 12, 2021 _______/S_/_ R_O_N_A_L_D_ S_._W_._ L_E_W________ HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW 19 Senior U.S. District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28