1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ? CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVAUGHN WARE, Case No.: 2:22-cv-7149-DDP-JPRx 12 Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER RE: 13 PETITIONER’S MOTION TO 14 Vv. CONFIRM FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR FURTHER 15 NABORS COMPLETION & ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 16 PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 17 corporation 18 [Dkt. 18] Respondent. 19 20 21 Presently before the court is Petitioner Devaughn Ware’s (“Ware”) Petition to 22 || Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and to Ente 23 || Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. 24 || (“Nabors”). (Dkt. 18.) Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court adopts the 25 || following Order". 26 27 28
1 I. BACKGROUND > Ware 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 || 18-10.) 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 Ware. (Dkt. 18-2, 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, Ware submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, asserting 13 || the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages (Cal. Lab. 14. || Code §§ 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 203); 15 || (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)); and (4 16 || unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). (Id. 1 13, Ex. D.) Thereafter, the 17 || Honorable Rosalyn M. Chapman (Ret.) was appointed as arbitrator (“Arbitrator”). (Id. J 18 || 19; Ex. F.) 19 Ware filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS Employment 20 || Rule 18. dd. J 20.) On December 16, 2021, the Arbitrator granted Ware’s motion, ruling 21 || on the issues pertaining to Nabors’ liability. (id. J 21., Ex. G.) On March 8, 2022, the 22 || matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration hearing on damages. (Id. J 23.) On May 31, 23 || 2022, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration Award. (Id. Ex. H.)) 24 On August 9, 2022, Ware filed a motion to set the amount of attorney’s fees and 25 || costs with the Arbitrator. (Id. { 24.) On September 26, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a Final 26 || Arbitration Award awarding $185,750.13 in attorney’s fees (including a 1.5 multiplier) 27 || and $4,001.50 in costs. (Id.; Ex. I) Through the Final Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator 28
1 awarded Ware unpaid wages in the total amount of $45,559.45 (including offsetting > credits in the amount of $3,594 for fringe-benefits paid by Nabors), interest through 3 March 8, 2022 in the amount of $40,222.67, continuing interest at the daily rate of $12.45 4 || (0% per annum) until paid in full, and statutory penalties in the amount of $25,506. 5 || da) 6 Ware now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $8,790.50 in 7 || post-award attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this 8 confirmation action. (Mot. at 16-17; Donahoo Decl. {| 37, 45.) g || Hl. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 11 Under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), upon application by a 12 || party for an order confirming an arbitration award, “the court must grant such an order 13 || unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11” of 14 || the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award, while § 11 names 15 || those for modifying or correcting one.” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 16 || 576, 582 (2008). 17 The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are “limited” and “exclusive.” 18 || Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2003). 19 || “Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal 20 || court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in this 21 || regard.” Id. As relevant here, Section 10 of the FAA permits vacatur where “the 22 || arbitrators exceeded their powers....” 9U.S.C.§ 10. Arbitrators “exceed their powers” 23 || “not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the 24 || award is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” Id. at 997 25 || (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To vacate an arbitration award on [the 26 || ground of manifest disregard of the law], ‘[i]t must be clear from the record that the 27 || arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.’” Biller v. Toyota Motor 28
Corp.,668F.3d655,665(9thCir.2012) (quotingLagsteinv.CertainUnderwriters at 1 Lloyd’s,London,607 F.3d634,641(9thCir.2010)). 2 B. Attorneys’Fees andCosts 3 Anemployee whoprevails inacivilactionpursuanttoCalifornia LaborCode 4 Sections 1194(a) and226(e) is entitledtorecoveranawardof reasonable attorneys’ fees 5 andcosts. See Cal. Lab.Code §1194(a) (“[A]nyemployee receivinglessthan the legal 6 minimumwage orthe legalovertimecompensationapplicable tothe employee is 7 entitledto recover...reasonable attorney’sfees,andcosts of suit.”);Cal. Lab.Code § 8 226(e) (“Anemployee sufferinginjuryas aresult of aknowingandintentionalfailure by 9 10 anemployertocomplywith[Section226(a)] ...is entitledtoanaward of costs and 11 reasonable attorney’sfees.”). 12 Onceapartyhas establishedthat itis entitledtoanawardof attorneys’ fees,“[i]t 13 remains forthe district courttodetermine whatfee is reasonable.” Hensleyv. Eckerhart, 14 461U.S.424,433(1983). The “startingpoint fordeterminingthe amountof areasonable 15 fee is the numberof hours reasonablyexpendedonthe litigation multipliedbya 16 reasonable hourlyrate.” Id. This is calledthe “lodestar”method. The fee applicantmust 17 submit evidenceof the hours workedandthe rates claimed. Althoughthe fee applicant 18 bears the burdenof establishing entitlement toanawardanddocumentation of the 19 appropriate hours expendedandhourlyrates,aprevailingparty “is notrequiredto 20 recordingreatdetail how eachminute of his timewas expended.” Id. at437n.12. The 21 prevailing partyseeking attorneys’ fees needonly“identifythe generalsubjectmatterof 22 his timeexpenditures” tomeetits burdenofestablishingits fee requestis reasonable. Id. 23 This limitedobligationreflects the broaderpolicythat a“requestforattorney’sfees 24 shouldnot resultinasecondmajorlitigation.” Id.at437. 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 A. Confirmation of ArbitrationAward 27 1 Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law > through several alleged errors with respect to Nabors’ liability and damages. (Dkt. 20, Opp. at 1-2.) Specifically, Nabors argues that the Arbitrator erred in the following: 3 PP P y.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ? CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVAUGHN WARE, Case No.: 2:22-cv-7149-DDP-JPRx 12 Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER RE: 13 PETITIONER’S MOTION TO 14 Vv. CONFIRM FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR FURTHER 15 NABORS COMPLETION & ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 16 PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 17 corporation 18 [Dkt. 18] Respondent. 19 20 21 Presently before the court is Petitioner Devaughn Ware’s (“Ware”) Petition to 22 || Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and to Ente 23 || Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. 24 || (“Nabors”). (Dkt. 18.) Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court adopts the 25 || following Order". 26 27 28
1 I. BACKGROUND > Ware 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 || 18-10.) 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 Ware. (Dkt. 18-2, 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, Ware submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, asserting 13 || the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages (Cal. Lab. 14. || Code §§ 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. Code § 203); 15 || (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 226(a)); and (4 16 || unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). (Id. 1 13, Ex. D.) Thereafter, the 17 || Honorable Rosalyn M. Chapman (Ret.) was appointed as arbitrator (“Arbitrator”). (Id. J 18 || 19; Ex. F.) 19 Ware filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS Employment 20 || Rule 18. dd. J 20.) On December 16, 2021, the Arbitrator granted Ware’s motion, ruling 21 || on the issues pertaining to Nabors’ liability. (id. J 21., Ex. G.) On March 8, 2022, the 22 || matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration hearing on damages. (Id. J 23.) On May 31, 23 || 2022, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration Award. (Id. Ex. H.)) 24 On August 9, 2022, Ware filed a motion to set the amount of attorney’s fees and 25 || costs with the Arbitrator. (Id. { 24.) On September 26, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a Final 26 || Arbitration Award awarding $185,750.13 in attorney’s fees (including a 1.5 multiplier) 27 || and $4,001.50 in costs. (Id.; Ex. I) Through the Final Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator 28
1 awarded Ware unpaid wages in the total amount of $45,559.45 (including offsetting > credits in the amount of $3,594 for fringe-benefits paid by Nabors), interest through 3 March 8, 2022 in the amount of $40,222.67, continuing interest at the daily rate of $12.45 4 || (0% per annum) until paid in full, and statutory penalties in the amount of $25,506. 5 || da) 6 Ware now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $8,790.50 in 7 || post-award attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this 8 confirmation action. (Mot. at 16-17; Donahoo Decl. {| 37, 45.) g || Hl. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 11 Under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), upon application by a 12 || party for an order confirming an arbitration award, “the court must grant such an order 13 || unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11” of 14 || the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award, while § 11 names 15 || those for modifying or correcting one.” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 16 || 576, 582 (2008). 17 The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are “limited” and “exclusive.” 18 || Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2003). 19 || “Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal 20 || court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in this 21 || regard.” Id. As relevant here, Section 10 of the FAA permits vacatur where “the 22 || arbitrators exceeded their powers....” 9U.S.C.§ 10. Arbitrators “exceed their powers” 23 || “not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the 24 || award is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” Id. at 997 25 || (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To vacate an arbitration award on [the 26 || ground of manifest disregard of the law], ‘[i]t must be clear from the record that the 27 || arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.’” Biller v. Toyota Motor 28
Corp.,668F.3d655,665(9thCir.2012) (quotingLagsteinv.CertainUnderwriters at 1 Lloyd’s,London,607 F.3d634,641(9thCir.2010)). 2 B. Attorneys’Fees andCosts 3 Anemployee whoprevails inacivilactionpursuanttoCalifornia LaborCode 4 Sections 1194(a) and226(e) is entitledtorecoveranawardof reasonable attorneys’ fees 5 andcosts. See Cal. Lab.Code §1194(a) (“[A]nyemployee receivinglessthan the legal 6 minimumwage orthe legalovertimecompensationapplicable tothe employee is 7 entitledto recover...reasonable attorney’sfees,andcosts of suit.”);Cal. Lab.Code § 8 226(e) (“Anemployee sufferinginjuryas aresult of aknowingandintentionalfailure by 9 10 anemployertocomplywith[Section226(a)] ...is entitledtoanaward of costs and 11 reasonable attorney’sfees.”). 12 Onceapartyhas establishedthat itis entitledtoanawardof attorneys’ fees,“[i]t 13 remains forthe district courttodetermine whatfee is reasonable.” Hensleyv. Eckerhart, 14 461U.S.424,433(1983). The “startingpoint fordeterminingthe amountof areasonable 15 fee is the numberof hours reasonablyexpendedonthe litigation multipliedbya 16 reasonable hourlyrate.” Id. This is calledthe “lodestar”method. The fee applicantmust 17 submit evidenceof the hours workedandthe rates claimed. Althoughthe fee applicant 18 bears the burdenof establishing entitlement toanawardanddocumentation of the 19 appropriate hours expendedandhourlyrates,aprevailingparty “is notrequiredto 20 recordingreatdetail how eachminute of his timewas expended.” Id. at437n.12. The 21 prevailing partyseeking attorneys’ fees needonly“identifythe generalsubjectmatterof 22 his timeexpenditures” tomeetits burdenofestablishingits fee requestis reasonable. Id. 23 This limitedobligationreflects the broaderpolicythat a“requestforattorney’sfees 24 shouldnot resultinasecondmajorlitigation.” Id.at437. 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 A. Confirmation of ArbitrationAward 27 1 Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law > through several alleged errors with respect to Nabors’ liability and damages. (Dkt. 20, Opp. at 1-2.) Specifically, Nabors argues that the Arbitrator erred in the following: 3 PP P y. 8 4 (1) rejecting, and not giving any deference to, the Labor Commissioner’s decision that Nabors’ subject work in the [Port of 5 Long Beach] was “not within the jurisdiction of California Public 6 Work Law” and therefore exempt from [California Labor Code § 1720, et seq.]; and (2) deeming the subject work as a public work and 7 awarding [Ware’s] prevailing wages even though there are no 8 prevailing wage rates—or applicable classifications—established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) for [Ware’s] oil field 9 work. 10 || Gd.) 11 Nabors, however, fails to identify any instances in the record where the Arbitrator 12 || “recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.” See Biller, 668 F.3d at 665. The 13 || alleged errors are based on misinterpretation or misapplication of the law —such legal 14 || errors are insufficient to vacate an Arbitration Award. “The risk that arbitrators may 15 || construe the governing law imperfectly in the course of delivering a decision that 16 || attempts in good faith to interpret the relevant law, or may make errors with respect to 17 || the evidence on which they base their rulings, is a risk that every party to arbitration 18 || assumes, and such legal and factual errors lie far outside the category of conduct 19 || embraced by § 10(a)(4).” Kyocera, 341 F.3d at 1003. Finding no manifest disregard of the 20 || law exhibited in the Arbitration Award, the court declines to vacate the Arbitration 21 || Award. 22 The court therefore grants Ware’s Petition to confirm the Arbitration Award. 23 B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 24 As the prevailing party in this action, Ware is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees 25 || and costs, including fees incurred in connection with the confirmation action. See Cal. 26 27 28
1 Lab. Code §§ 1194(a), 226(e).2 Thus, the only issue before the court is whether the > requested fees and costs are reasonable. Ware seeks $8,790.50 in attorneys’ fees. The court finds, and Nabors does not 3 dispute, that the rates set forth by Ware’s counsel are within the range of reasonable rate: 4 Pp y for attorneys in the local community, taking into consideration the “experience, skill, and 5 y ty, 8 Pp reputation of the attorney.” Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 908 6 Pp y. ycnWwarz V. Of Tealth o Puman Servs., 9th Cir. 1995). Specifically, the court finds that the following rates are reasonable: 7 P y. 8 e Richard E. Donahoo, Attorney; $700/hour 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, Ware’s counsel 11 has submitted detailed billing records of work performed and an accompanying 12 declaration. (See Donahoo Decl. 37-39; 42-44 & Ex. J.) Ware’s motion and Richard 13 Donahoo’s declaration estimate that counsel spent a total of 13.9 hours on tasks related tc 14 the post-award confirmation action. (Mot. at 17; Donahoo Decl. 37.) Of these hours, 15 Ware claims that 7 hours are attributable to Richard Donahoo, 3.2 hours are attributable 16 Vv to Sarah Kokonas, 0.7 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 19 209 || * 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 21 at*3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2021), Ridgeway v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., No. 15-cv-3436-DDP-JPR, 2021 WL 3184226, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2021), Ronquillo v. 22 AONQUILLO 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 judgment. (Donahoo Decl. {J 37-39, 42-44.) The court has adjusted these hours for > reasonableness. Specifically, the court has subtracted 1.9 hours from the amount of time 3 billed by Sara L. Kokonas in connection with the preparation of the petition and motion 4 || t confirm the arbitration award. Given that the court decided to take this matter under 5 submission without a hearing, the court has subtracted 0.8 hours from the amount of 6 || time Richard Donahoo anticipated billing for preparing for and attending the hearing. 7 Applying the approved rates to the adjusted hours, the lodestar method yields the g || following result: Lodestar 0 $6 $2065
14 15 With these adjustments, the chart above reflects the reasonable number of hours
16 expended by counsel in relation to the confirmation action and request for post-award 7 fees. Thus, Ware is entitled to $7,290 in fees and $402 for the cost of filing the complaint. 18 IV. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Ware’s Petition to Confirm the 20 Arbitration Award. The Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Hon. Rosalyn M. Chapman (Ret.) on September 6, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058933, is confirmed. This Court shall enter judgment in favor of Ruben Ware and against Nabors 53 || in the amount of $45,449.35 in unpaid wages (including offsetting credits in the amount 54 || of $3,594 for fringe-benefits paid by Nabors), interest through March 8, 2022 in the 95 || amount of $40,222.67, continuing interest at the daily rate of $12.45 (10% per annum) 96 || until paid in full, statutory penalties in the amount of $25,506, attorney’s fees in the 97 || amount of $185,750.13, and costs in the amount of $4,001.50. 28
1 The court further GRANTS Ware’s request for post-award attorneys’ fees in the > || amount of $7,290 and for costs in the amount of $402. 3 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 4 5 || Dated: May 10, 2023 6 7 8 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