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

Opinion

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

reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a

reasonable hourly rate,” which is known as the lodestar

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

Pension Plan v. Pro Tech Eng’g Corp.,

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