Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan, et al. v. James Breneman

N.D. California

Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan, et al. v. James Breneman

District Court, N.D. California·Decided November 4, 2025·No. 3:25-cv-03015·Unknown

Opinion

San Francisco Division BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE U.A. Case No. 25-cv-03015-AMO (LB) LOCAL NOS. 343 AND 355 DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, et al., ORDER FOR MORE INFORMATION Plaintiffs, Re: ECF No. 34 v.

Defendant.

The court asks the plaintiffs to provide more information about their hourly rates and their contact with the defendant by November 10, 2025. 1. Hourly Rate An award of reasonable attorney’s fees is mandatory under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 257 (9th Cir. 1996). To determine a reasonable fee award, courts apply the lodestar method and multiply the number of hours reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010). The court needs more information about the hourly rate because the declaration cites only complex ERISA cases to support the hourly rates, not cases involving similar work. A reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008); Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). The “community” is “the forum in which the district court sits,” here, the Northern District of California. Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979. The fee applicant has the burden to produce satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in line with community rates for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation. Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895–97, 895 n.11 (1984)). Declarations by the plaintiffs’ attorneys and other attorneys regarding prevailing rates in the community, and rate determinations in other cases, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate. Hiken v. Dep’t of Def., 836 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2016). The court must consider the declarations and cannot consider only earlier fee awards, even to the same attorneys. Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1024–25 (9th Cir. 2019). The plaintiffs’ declaration described the hourly rates and qualifications of attorneys Patricia McCormick ($850 and thirty-plus years of Taft-Hartley ERISA experience), Katherine McDonough ($750 and twenty-four years), Jessica Alvarez ($600 and five years), and Darelda Medina ($400 and two years), and paralegals Rochelle Carter, Jocelyn Pen, and Lorena Aleman ($258).1 They compare their hourly rates to those that courts have awarded in other cases.2 The court’s knowledge about prevailing rates can support a conclusion that the rates are reasonable. Hiken, 836 F.3d at 1044. But the plaintiffs’ cited cases do not involve default judgments for fringe-benefit contributions and instead involve more complex ERISA cases. In similar ERISA fringe-benefits cases, courts typically award lower hourly rates, including — in recent cases — attorney hourly rates of $200 to $325 and paralegal rates of $125 to $190. See, e.g., Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Tr. Fund for N. Cal. v. Pipe-Net, Inc., No. 23-CV- 06267-LB, 2024 WL 3390528, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2024), R. & R. adopted, No. 23-CV-

1 McDonough Decl. – ECF No. 34-1 at 3 (¶ 4), 4 (¶¶ 6, 8), 5 (¶ 11), 6–7 (¶¶ 12–15). 06267-MMC, 2024 WL 3379683 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2024) (attorney rate of $305 and paralegal rate of $175 (collecting cases)); Dist. Council 16 N. Cal. Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Herron Painting Co., No. 23-CV-00458-TSH, 2025 WL 1533017, at *11 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2025) (attorney rates of $285 to $325 and paralegal rates of $165 to $185). The plaintiffs cited other cases to support their rates. Beryl v. Navient Corp., No. 20-CV- 05920-LB, 2023 WL 4570626, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2023) ($1,200 hourly rate for attorney with thirty-four years of experience); Downes v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 23-CV-01643-RS, 2024 WL 4876940, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2024) ($900 hourly rate reasonable for partner specializing in ERISA cases); In re LinkedIn ERISA Litig., No. 5:20-CV-05704-EJD, 2023 WL 8631678, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2023) (hourly rates of $750 to $1,100 for partners, $375 to $550 for associate attorneys, and $250 to $350 for paralegals). But all involved more complex litigation and different expertise: Beryl involved an executive-compensation plan, Downes involved long-term disability benefits, and LinkedIn was a class-action settlement of claims of breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA regarding investment options in 401(k) plans. Beryl, 2023 WL 4570626, at *1; Downes, 2024 WL 4876940, at *1; In re LinkedIn, 2023 WL 8631678, at *1. To identify any like cases in the district involving these lawyers, the court queried ECF, which identified fifty-seven cases in this district (beginning in 2008) where Ms. McDonough has been attorney of record. Most do not show fees (because they settled) or are not fringe-benefit cases. One recent fringe-benefits case — with low fees of $13,448.90 — allowed a $650 hourly rate for Ms. McDonough, $500 for Ms. Alvarez, and $225 for the paralegal. Bd. of Trs. of W. States Insulators & Allied Individual Acct. Plan v. A1 Insulation Mech., No. 24-CV-03921-JSC, 2025 WL 458249, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025). To support the result, it cited (but did not analyze) In re LinkedIn, the class-action settlement regarding mismanagement of a 401(k) plan, and, for the paralegal rate, a class-action settlement regarding mismanagement of a 401(k) plan. Id. (citing In re LinkedIn, 2023 WL 8631678, at *10; Johnson v. Fujistsu Tech. & Bus. of Am., Inc., No. 16-CV-03698-NC, 2018 WL 2183253, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) ($250 paralegal rate)). It did not address explicitly the “similar work” requirement and thus does not necessarily support the rates here. 1 Because the moving party has the burden to provide satisfactory evidence — in addition to the 2 attorney’s own declaration, see Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1263 — that the rates are in line with 3 community rates for similar work, the plaintiffs must submit information (in addition to their own 4 declaration) to support their hourly rates as reasonable, such as a supplemental declaration from 5 another attorney or citations to cases involving similar work. See, e.g., Cohodes v. U.S. DOJ, No. 6 20-cv-04015-LB, 2025 WL 572888, at *11—-13 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2025) (summarizing factors). 7 8 2. Contact with the Defendant 9 The plaintiffs also mention that they conferred with the defaulting defendant’s counsel.? In the 10 update, given that this is a default-judgment motion, the court asks for more information about 11 contacts with the defendant or counsel.

13 3. Update 14 The update is due on November 10, 2025. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: November 4, 2025 LAE Oe Te United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7/d. at 2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

San Francisco Division BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE U.A. Case No. 25-cv-03015-AMO (LB) LOCAL NOS. 343 AND 355 DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN, et al., ORDER FOR MORE INFORMATION Plaintiffs, Re: ECF No. 34 v.

Defendant.

The court asks the plaintiffs to provide more information about their hourly rates and their contact with the defendant by November 10, 2025. 1. Hourly Rate An award of reasonable attorney’s fees is mandatory under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2). Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 257 (9th Cir. 1996). To determine a reasonable fee award, courts apply the lodestar method and multiply the number of hours reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010). The court needs more information about the hourly rate because the declaration cites only complex ERISA cases to support the hourly rates, not cases involving similar work. A reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008); Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). The “community” is “the forum in which the district court sits,” here, the Northern District of California. Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979. The fee applicant has the burden to produce satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the requested rates are in line with community rates for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation. Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895–97, 895 n.11 (1984)). Declarations by the plaintiffs’ attorneys and other attorneys regarding prevailing rates in the community, and rate determinations in other cases, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate. Hiken v. Dep’t of Def., 836 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir. 2016). The court must consider the declarations and cannot consider only earlier fee awards, even to the same attorneys. Roberts v. City of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020, 1024–25 (9th Cir. 2019). The plaintiffs’ declaration described the hourly rates and qualifications of attorneys Patricia McCormick ($850 and thirty-plus years of Taft-Hartley ERISA experience), Katherine McDonough ($750 and twenty-four years), Jessica Alvarez ($600 and five years), and Darelda Medina ($400 and two years), and paralegals Rochelle Carter, Jocelyn Pen, and Lorena Aleman ($258).1 They compare their hourly rates to those that courts have awarded in other cases.2 The court’s knowledge about prevailing rates can support a conclusion that the rates are reasonable. Hiken, 836 F.3d at 1044. But the plaintiffs’ cited cases do not involve default judgments for fringe-benefit contributions and instead involve more complex ERISA cases. In similar ERISA fringe-benefits cases, courts typically award lower hourly rates, including — in recent cases — attorney hourly rates of $200 to $325 and paralegal rates of $125 to $190. See, e.g., Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Tr. Fund for N. Cal. v. Pipe-Net, Inc., No. 23-CV- 06267-LB, 2024 WL 3390528, at *6 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2024), R. & R. adopted, No. 23-CV-

1 McDonough Decl. – ECF No. 34-1 at 3 (¶ 4), 4 (¶¶ 6, 8), 5 (¶ 11), 6–7 (¶¶ 12–15). 06267-MMC, 2024 WL 3379683 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2024) (attorney rate of $305 and paralegal rate of $175 (collecting cases)); Dist. Council 16 N. Cal. Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Herron Painting Co., No. 23-CV-00458-TSH, 2025 WL 1533017, at *11 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2025) (attorney rates of $285 to $325 and paralegal rates of $165 to $185). The plaintiffs cited other cases to support their rates. Beryl v. Navient Corp., No. 20-CV- 05920-LB, 2023 WL 4570626, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2023) ($1,200 hourly rate for attorney with thirty-four years of experience); Downes v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 23-CV-01643-RS, 2024 WL 4876940, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2024) ($900 hourly rate reasonable for partner specializing in ERISA cases); In re LinkedIn ERISA Litig., No. 5:20-CV-05704-EJD, 2023 WL 8631678, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2023) (hourly rates of $750 to $1,100 for partners, $375 to $550 for associate attorneys, and $250 to $350 for paralegals). But all involved more complex litigation and different expertise: Beryl involved an executive-compensation plan, Downes involved long-term disability benefits, and LinkedIn was a class-action settlement of claims of breach of fiduciary duties under ERISA regarding investment options in 401(k) plans. Beryl, 2023 WL 4570626, at *1; Downes, 2024 WL 4876940, at *1; In re LinkedIn, 2023 WL 8631678, at *1. To identify any like cases in the district involving these lawyers, the court queried ECF, which identified fifty-seven cases in this district (beginning in 2008) where Ms. McDonough has been attorney of record. Most do not show fees (because they settled) or are not fringe-benefit cases. One recent fringe-benefits case — with low fees of $13,448.90 — allowed a $650 hourly rate for Ms. McDonough, $500 for Ms. Alvarez, and $225 for the paralegal. Bd. of Trs. of W. States Insulators & Allied Individual Acct. Plan v. A1 Insulation Mech., No. 24-CV-03921-JSC, 2025 WL 458249, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2025). To support the result, it cited (but did not analyze) In re LinkedIn, the class-action settlement regarding mismanagement of a 401(k) plan, and, for the paralegal rate, a class-action settlement regarding mismanagement of a 401(k) plan. Id. (citing In re LinkedIn, 2023 WL 8631678, at *10; Johnson v. Fujistsu Tech. & Bus. of Am., Inc., No. 16-CV-03698-NC, 2018 WL 2183253, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2018) ($250 paralegal rate)). It did not address explicitly the “similar work” requirement and thus does not necessarily support the rates here. 1 Because the moving party has the burden to provide satisfactory evidence — in addition to the 2 attorney’s own declaration, see Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1263 — that the rates are in line with 3 community rates for similar work, the plaintiffs must submit information (in addition to their own 4 declaration) to support their hourly rates as reasonable, such as a supplemental declaration from 5 another attorney or citations to cases involving similar work. See, e.g., Cohodes v. U.S. DOJ, No. 6 20-cv-04015-LB, 2025 WL 572888, at *11—-13 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2025) (summarizing factors). 7 8 2. Contact with the Defendant 9 The plaintiffs also mention that they conferred with the defaulting defendant’s counsel.? In the 10 update, given that this is a default-judgment motion, the court asks for more information about 11 contacts with the defendant or counsel.

13 3. Update 14 The update is due on November 10, 2025. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: November 4, 2025 LAE Oe Te United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7/d. at 2.

Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan, et al. v. James Breneman, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan, et al. v. James Breneman (Board of Trustees of the U.A. Local Nos. 343 and 355 Defined Contribution Plan, et al. v. James Breneman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related