Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Emmanuel Environmental, Inc.

Opinion

Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry Case No. 2:23-cv-01704-JAD-MDC and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust; Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust; Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Vacation Trust; Board of Trustees of the Southern Nevada Laborers Local 872 Training Trust, Order Granting Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Plaintiffs v. ECF No. 24 Emmanuel Environmental, Inc.; and Romelle Emmanuel,

Defendants

Back in March, I entered judgment against Romelle Emmanuel and his company Emmanuel Environmental for the $90,653.84 they owed to the plaintiff employee-benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).1 The plaintiffs now move for an award of the $53,168 in attorneys’ fees that they incurred litigating this case.2 The motion is unopposed. ERISA contains a fees-and-costs provision that requires the court to award a prevailing plan “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of the action . . . .”3 The Ninth

1 ECF Nos. 22, 23. 2 ECF No. 24. Although the motion repeatedly refers to fees and costs, the billing records don’t include any costs, and it does not appear that the calculations provided do either. 3 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2); Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 257 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Section 1132(g)(2) is mandatory and not discretionary.” (quoting Operating Circuit has adopted a hybrid lodestar–multiplier approach for determining reasonable fees in ERISA cases.4 That “approach has two parts. First, [the] court determines the

‘lodestar’ amount by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate” based on the evidence submitted.5 “Second, [the] court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a ‘multiplier’ based on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation of the lodestar.”6 To further assist the court in this determination, this district’s local rule 54-14 requires any application for attorneys’ fees to include, as relevant here, an attorney affidavit, “[a] reasonable itemization and

description of the work performed[,]” and “[a] brief summary” of 13 categories of information designed to elicit more information about the case and the work that the attorneys performed.7 Counsel for the prevailing trust funds here seek incurred fees of $48,168, plus another $5,000 that they anticipate they’ll bill for collection efforts. I find that an award

of the incurred $48,168 in fees is merited. The lawyers calculate their fee request based entirely on the work performed at their discounted billing rates for ERISA cases, which I find to be commensurate with market rates in this jurisdiction, and they don’t ask for a

Eng’rs Pension Trust v. Beck Eng’g & Surveying, Co., 746 F.2d 557, 569 (9th Cir. 1984)). 4 Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983)). 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 L.R. 54-14 (a)–(b). 1 lodestar multiplier.’ Based on counsel’s affidavit,’ the billing records,'° my review of the docket in this case, and my familiarity with the course of this action, I find that the hours worked and amounts billed are reasonable in light of the skill, experience, time, and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; the results obtained; and fee awards in similar cases. But I do not find that an award of anticipated fees of $5,000 is warranted because whether such fees will ultimately be expended is too speculative. So I grant the motion for attorneys’ fees [ECF No. 24] in part and award the 8 plaintiffs $48,168 in attorneys’ fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER AN 9] AMENDED JUDGMENT that adds this fee award to the prior final judgment [ECF No.

: (Doe USS. District Judge J eniifer A. Dorsey September 11, 2025

8 See ECF No. 24-5 at 2. Td. ECF No. 24-4.