Fisk v. Maricopa, County of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01914
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Benjamin Fisk, No. CV-21-01914-PHX-ROS

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 County of Maricopa, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 16 124, “Mot.”) seeking $106,277.50 in fees and $795.85 in costs. Defendants object to 17 several of Plaintiff’s requests and have asked the Court to enter a fee award no greater than 18 $10,000. (Doc. 125). For the reasons that follow, the Court will award Plaintiff a reduced 19 amount of $88,545 in fees and $283.35 in costs. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff filed this suit on November 12, 2021, seeking relief for claims of First 22 Amendment Freedom of Speech, First Amendment Freedom of Association, and First 23 Amendment Retaliation against Defendants. (Doc. 1). On February 23, 2024, the Court 24 granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in part against Plaintiff’s claims for 25 violations of his First Amendment Freedom of Speech and First Amendment Freedom of 26 Association. (Doc. 101). On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff accepted an offer of judgment from 27 Defendants which reads as follows: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, Defendants allow Plaintiff 28 Benjamin Fisk to take judgment against them in the total amount of Two Thousand 1 Dollars and No Cents ($2,000.00), plus the reasonable attorneys’ fees and taxable costs incurred to date. The amount of the reasonable fees and costs shall be 2 determined by the Court following a full briefing on the reasonableness of such fee 3 and cost application. … 4 The offer of judgment does not constitute an admission of liability or 5 wrongdoing by Defendants in this action or any other, or an admission that Plaintiff suffered any legally cognizable injury. 6

7 (Doc. 119). 8 On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. (Mot.). Defendants responded 9 on August 19, 2024 (Doc. 125) and Plaintiff replied on August 26, 2024. (Doc. 126). 10 ATTORNEYS’ FEES 11 I. Plaintiff Motion to Strike Consideration of Plaintiff’s Settlement Offer 12 Plaintiff moves under LRCiv. 7.2(m)(2) to strike the Court’s consideration of 13 Plaintiff’s settlement offer attached to Defendants’ Response as evidence improperly 14 offered to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim under 408 FRE. 15 Courts in the Ninth Circuit are free to consider settlement discussions in determining 16 an award of attorneys’ fees. See Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 2011). 17 Plaintiff’s motion to strike will thus be denied. 18 II. Entitlement and Eligibility to Fees 19 Plaintiff requests $106,277.50 in attorneys’ fees and $795.85 in non-taxable costs 20 pursuant to the offer of judgment and Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. The Court finds Plaintiff is 21 eligible for, and entitled to attorneys’ fees. 22 III. Reasonableness of Requested Award 23 A. Requested Reduction 24 Defendants have requested the Court use its discretion to enter a fee award no 25 greater than $10,000 because two counts of Plaintiff’s Complaint were dismissed and the 26 settlement amount of $2,000 is significantly less than what Plaintiff sought to obtain at 27 trial. Plaintiff argues the Court should apply principles of contract rather than § 1988 when 28 considering a fees award under a Rule 68 offer of judgment and contends Defendants were 1 aware of the amount of Plaintiff’s fees by disclosure statements and could have limited 2 Plaintiff’s fees in their offer. 3 Rule 68 offers of judgment are to be interpreted under principles governing contract 4 construction rather than those governing § 1988 awards and “any ambiguities are construed 5 against the drafter.” Miller v. City of Portland, 868 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 6 Erdman v. Cochise Cty., 926 F.2d 877, 880 (9th Cir. 1991)). In particular, if a Rule 68 offer 7 includes attorneys’ fees, the Ninth Circuit has stated the language waiving or limiting 8 attorneys’ fees and costs “must be clear and unambiguous.” Nusom v. Comh Woodburn, 9 Inc., 122 F.3d 830, 833 (9th Cir. 1997); Erdman v. Cochise County, Ariz., 926 F.2d 877, 10 880 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 6 (1985). 11 The fee portion of the Rule 68 offer reads, “plus the reasonable attorneys’ fees and 12 taxable costs incurred to date. The amount of the reasonable fees and costs shall be 13 determined by the Court following a full briefing on the reasonableness of such fee and 14 cost application.” (Doc. 119). 15 The Court finds the plain language does not warrant substantial cuts to Plaintiff’s 16 fee request. This is particularly so because Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s incurred 17 fees before making their Rule 68 offer, made no effort to provide any limiting language, 18 and the fee provision states Plaintiff is entitled to “reasonable” fees. Thus, while the Court 19 will review the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s requested fees, the Court declines Defendants’ 20 request to drastically reduce Plaintiff’s fee award. 21 B. Lodestar Method 22 Courts “employ the ‘lodestar’ method to determine a reasonable attorney’s fees 23 award.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Fischer v. SJB–P.D. 24 Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000)). Courts calculate the lodestar figure by 25 “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a case by a reasonable hourly 26 rate.” Id. 27 After calculating the lodestar figure, a Court may reduce or increase the award based 28 on a variety of factors. Those factors include: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the 1 novelty and difficulty of the legal questions involved, (3) the skill required to perform the 2 legal service properly, (4) other employment precluded due to acceptance of the case, (5) 3 the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed 4 by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the 5 experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case, 6 (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards 7 in similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Kerr 8 factors”).1 The lodestar calculation normally subsumes some of these factors such that the 9 Court need not consider them again after determining the lodestar. See Gonzalez v. City of 10 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir. 2013) (identifying factors often considered when 11 calculating lodestar). 12 C. Hourly Rates 13 The first question is whether Plaintiff’s asserted rate is reasonable. “A reasonable 14 hourly rate is ordinarily the prevailing market rate in the relevant community.” Sw. Fair 15 Hous. Council v. WG Scottsdale LLC, No. 19-00180, 2022 WL 16715613 at *3 (D. Ariz. 16 Nov. 4, 2022) (citing Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099). And “the burden is on the fee applicant to 17 produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits—that the 18 requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by 19 lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 20 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). 21 Plaintiff’s Counsel, Jaqueline Mendez Soto and James E Barton are partners of 22 Barton Mendez Soto PLLC and both have practiced labor and employment law for 23 approximately 12 years. (Doc. 124-4 at ¶ 4-6). Plaintiff asserts a $350 per hour billing rate 24 for both attorneys, supported by Ms. Soto’s affidavit and cited cases that have found a 25 similar billing rate for employment legal services. Id.; Verduzco v. Value Dental Centers 26 Mesa West AZ LLC, CV-20-02380-PHX-DJH, 2022 WL 2718163 *2 (D. Ariz. July 12, 27 1 LRCiv. 54.2 also lists factors the Court must address when determining the 28 reasonableness of the requested award. These factors are largely duplicative of the Kerr factors. 1 2022) (finding $350 in a wage claim lawsuit reasonable); Wash. v. Freedom of Expression 2 LLC, CV-21-01318-PHX-MTL 2022 WL 5024276 (D. Ariz. Oct. 4, 2022) (gathering 3 employment cases finding reasonable hourly rates in the amounts of $475, $460, and 4 $378.75). Plaintiff also asserts an hourly rate of $250 for associate Daniella Fernandez 5 Lertzman and $125 for paralegal Rosa Torres. 6 The prevailing rates for employment cases in the District of Arizona and Counsel’s 7 experience support their requested hourly rates. Thus, the Court finds the $350 hourly 8 attorney rate, $250 associate rate, and the $125 paralegal rate to be reasonable. 9 D. Hours Expended 10 Under the lodestar method, the prevailing party is generally entitled to recover fees 11 for “every item of service which, at the time rendered, would have been undertaken by a 12 reasonable and prudent lawyer to advance or protect his client’s interest.” Gary v. Carbon 13 Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 486 (D. Ariz. 2019) (quoting Twin City Sportservice 14 v. Charles O. Finley & Co., 676 F.2d 1291, 1313 (9th Cir. 1982)). Courts may “exclude 15 from this initial fee calculation hours that were not reasonably expended.” Hensley v. 16 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983) (internal quotations omitted); see also McKown v. 17 City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In determining the appropriate 18 number of hours to be included in a lodestar calculation, the district court should exclude 19 hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”). 20 Unreasonable hours may be excluded in one of two ways. Gonzalez v. City of 21 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2013). First, courts may exclude unreasonable 22 hours after “conduct[ing] an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request[.]’” Id. (internal 23 quotation marks omitted). Second, courts “faced with a massive fee application” may 24 “make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the 25 final lodestar figure as a practical means of excluding non-compensable hours from a fee 26 application.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Fox v. Vice, 563 27 U.S. 826, 838 (2011) (“[T]rial courts need not, and indeed should not, become green- 28 eyeshade accountants. The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough 1 justice, not to achieve auditing perfection. So trial courts may take into account their overall 2 sense of a suit, and may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time.”). 3 When a district court excludes hours, it must explain how it came up with the amount of 4 an attorneys’ fees award. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 5 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The explanation need not be elaborate, but it must be comprehensible ... 6 Where the difference between the lawyer’s request and the court’s award is relatively 7 small, a somewhat cursory explanation will suffice. But where the disparity is larger, a 8 more specific articulation of the court’s reasoning is expected.”) (citations omitted). 9 Plaintiff has submitted an itemized task list of time and work Plaintiff’s counsel 10 expended on this case. (Doc. 124-3). Defendants have objected to many of Plaintiff’s 11 entries on this list. Having carefully considered the time and labor reasonably required for 12 each task in Plaintiff’s itemized statement and Defendants’ objections, the Court finds not 13 all hours expended by Plaintiff are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will decrease the 14 lodestar amount by reducing the number of hours the Court deems unreasonable. The 15 reduction of the lodestar amount is supported by consideration of the relevant Kerr factors 16 discussed below. 17 a. Clerical or Administrative Tasks 18 Parties may not recover fees for tasks performed by attorneys and paralegals which 19 are clerical or administrative in nature. Gary v. Carbon Cycle Arizona LLC, 398 F. Supp. 20 3d 468, 487 (D. Ariz. 2019); see Neil v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 495 Fed.Appx. 845, 847 (9th 21 Cir. 2012) (holding that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award 22 [ ] attorney’s fees for purely clerical tasks such as filing documents and preparing and 23 serving summons”); see also Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906, 921 (9th Cir. 2009) 24 (holding that clerical tasks such as filing and document organization “should have been 25 subsumed in firm overhead rather than billed at paralegal rates”); see also Pearson v. Nat’l 26 Credit Sys., Inc., No. 2: CV-10-0526-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL 5146805, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 27 13. 2010) (“[T]asks which are clerical in nature are not recoverable.”). 28 Non-compensable clerical or administrative tasks include, but are not limited to: (1) 1 reviewing Court-generated notices; (2) scheduling dates and deadlines; (3) calendaring 2 dates and deadlines; (4) notifying a client of dates and deadlines; (5) preparing documents 3 for filing with the Court; (6) filing documents with the Court; (7) informing a client that a 4 document has been filed; (8) personally delivering documents; (9) bates stamping and other 5 labeling of documents; (10) maintaining and pulling files; (11) copying, printing, and 6 scanning documents; receiving, downloading, and emailing documents; and (12) 7 communicating with Court staff. Rodriguez v. Pride Dealer Services, 2024 WL 4290725 8 (D. Ariz. 2024) (internal citations omitted). 9 Here, counsel seeks compensation for 28.2 hours of clerical tasks and clerical tasks 10 block billed with other services2 and 4.1 hours of clerical expenses.3 11 Counsel may not recover for these tasks because they “should have been subsumed 12 in firm overhead.” Nadarajah, 569 F.3d at 921. Thus, the Court will reduce the number of 13 fee hours expended by 28.2 hours and $8122.504 and reduce expense hours by 4.1 hours 14 and $512.505 to account for non-compensable clerical and administrative tasks. 15 b. Tasks Not Adequately Described 16 Defendants allege 73.7 hours of Plaintiff’s alleged tasks are inadequately described 17 under LRCiv 54.2(e). These tasks largely consist of work drafting motions and researching 18 2 10/1/21 (1.0 prepare and label documents); 12/21/21 (0.2 review documents and update 19 file); 1/25/22 (0.1 transmit document); 2/14/22 (0.6 calendaring); 3/18/22 (1.0 serve documents); 9/25/22 (2.8 index documents); 10/26/22 (0.4 transmit documents); 12/5/22 20 (2.5 prepare shells for discovery responses); 12/11/22 (2.1 index documents); 12/26/22 (0.8 review deadlines, update file); 1/18/23 (0.3 review email and update file); 3/9/23 (0.5 21 organize documents); 7/20/23 (1.0 save exhibits); 7/24/23 (2.0 cross-check exhibits); 7/24/23 (1.0 organize exhibits); 7/27/23 (0.1 calendaring); 1/9/24 (0.1 calendaring); 22 1/10/24 (1.6 create chart); 1/18/24 (2.9 create chart); 1/24/24 (0.5 edit chart); 1/25/24 (0.9 create chart); 1/26/24 (2.2 work on chart); 3/4/24 (0.5 index documents); 3/5/24 (1.5 index 23 documents); 5/6/24 (0.2 prepare shell); 5/22/24 (0.7 find document); 5/22/24 (0.3 send document); 6/11/24 (0.2 calendaring); 6/25/24 (0.2 send document). 24 3 6/9/23 (2.0 prepare exhibits); 6/12/23 (1.0 deliver documents); 7/24/23 (0.2 convert exhibit); 5/17/24 (0.3 copy, save, file document); 5/29/24 (0.5 format document); 6/28/24 25 (0.1 file document). 4 (1.0 * 350) + (0.2 * 350) + (0.1 * 350) + (0.6 * 350) + (1.0 * 350) + (2.8 * 350) + (0.4 * 26 350) + (2.5 * 250) + (2.1 * 350) + (0.8 * 350) + (0.3 * 350) + (0.5 * 350) + (1.0 * 350) + 27 (2.0 * 350) + (350 * 0.1) + (350 * 0.1) + (1.6 * 250) + (2.9 * 250) + (0.5 * 250) + (0.9 * 250) + (2.2 * 250) + (0.5 * 250) + (1.5 * 250) + (0.2 * 350) + (0.7 * 250) + (0.3 * 125) + 28 (0.2 * 350) + (0.2 * 350) = $8122.50 5 (2.0 * 125) + (1.0 * 125) + (0.2 * 125) + (0.3 * 125) + (0.5 * 125) + (0.1 * 125) = $512.50 1 cases. Having closely reviewed the Defendants’ objected entries, the Court finds none of 2 these entries are inadequately described under LRCiv 54.2(e). The Court thus declines to 3 exclude the hours of these entries. 4 c. Unreasonable Rates 5 Defendants also allege several tasks are billed at unreasonable rates. Defendants 6 object to time entries from unidentified attorney Alexandra Subaitis and paralegal Rosa 7 Torres. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for 2.8 hours of tasks performed by Alexandra 8 Subaitis on 2/7/22 and the entry on 6/25/24 incorrectly identifies Rosa Torres’s billing rate 9 as $350. The Court will deduct 3.0 hours and $1050.006 for these entries. 10 Defendants also object to Plaintiff seeking reimbursement for 4.2 hours of attorney 11 time in drafting and revising responses to requests for admission in which Plaintiff 12 ultimately provided only identical objections. As requested by Defendants, the Court will 13 deduct 3.2 of the 4.2 hours and $1120.007 for these entries. 14 d. Duplicative and Unnecessary Tasks 15 Defendants object to several tasks as duplicative including: (1) 4.3 hours of multiple 16 attorneys reviewing Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s first set of discovery responses, (2) 17 0.7 hours of reviewing the Court’s summary judgment ruling, (3) 2.5 hours of researching 18 whether to pursue a special action, and (4) 10.3 hours incurred in trial preparation. The 19 Court agrees with Defendants and will deduct 17.8 hours and $5290.008 for these entries. 20 e. Fees Related to Counts I and II 21 Defendants request the Court reduce hours distinctly related to Counts I and II of 22 this matter, which were dismissed following Plaintiff’s denied and Defendants’ granted 23 cross motions for summary judgment. This includes 33.7 hours of depositions related to 24 Defendants who were only named as part of Counts I and II and 48.9 hours incurred on the 25 summary judgment motions. The Court finds such reductions would be inconsistent with 26 the terms of the Rule 68 offer of judgment and declines to make such cuts here. 27 6 (2.8 * 350) + (0.2 * 350) = $1050.00 28 7 (3.2 * 350) = $1120.00 8 (4.3 * 350) + (0.7 * 350) + (2.5 * 350) + (9.4 * 250) + (0.9 * 350) = $5290.00 1 2 f. Stipulated Reductions 3 Plaintiff does not object to Defendants’ requested reduction for associate Daniella 4 Fernandez Lertzman’s attendance at depositions and mediation on 2/21/23, 4/27/23, 5 5/4/23, and 7/28/23, totaling 8.6 hours and a sum of $2,150.00. 6 g. Kerr Factors 7 In sum, the Court will reduce Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees by 60.8 hours and an amount 8 of $17,732.509 and costs by 4.1 hours and an amount of $512.50. This leaves a total of 9 $88,545.00 in attorneys’ fees and $283.35 in costs. The reduction of the lodestar amount 10 is supported by consideration of the relevant Kerr factors discussed below. 11 1. Factors (1), (2), and (3): Time, Difficulty, and Skill 12 The first three Kerr factors courts consider are (1) the time and labor required, (2) 13 the novelty and difficulty of the legal questions involved, and (3) the skill required to 14 perform the legal service properly. 15 The Court recognizes this case spanned over two and a half years and involved 16 significant amounts of discovery, multiple depositions, dual motions for summary 17 judgment, and oral argument eight months after the filing of the summary judgment 18 motions. Accordingly, these factors support awarding Plaintiff’s requested fees. 19 2. Factor (4): Other Employment Precluded 20 Plaintiff states counsel stopped taking clients for several months during the litigation 21 of this case. This factor supports awarding Plaintiff’s requested fees. 22 3. Factor (6): Fixed or Contingent Fee 23 Plaintiff and counsel entered a contingency fee agreement in this case awarding 24 either any portion made specifically for attorneys’ fees or a percentage of the gross 25 recovery. (Doc. 124-2). This factor supports awarding Plaintiff’s requested fees. 26 4. Factor (8): Amount Involved and the Results Obtained 27 Plaintiff argues they should be considered a prevailing party under a Rule 68 offer 28 9 $2150 + $5290 + $1120 + $1050 + $8122.50 = $17,732.50 1 of judgment. Defendants respond Plaintiffs settled for significantly less than they sought 2 to obtain at trial with a judgment of $2,000 and that Counts I and II of Plaintiff’s complaint 3 was dismissed. 4 The Court finds the amount involved and the results obtained here support a 5 reduction of hours. Accordingly, this factor supports a reduction of Plaintiff’s fees. 6 5. Factor (10): Undesirability of the Case 7 Plaintiff argues discrimination cases with law-imposed restrictions on damages due 8 to plaintiff remaining employed by the employer are particularly undesirable. While the 9 Court agrees this factor supports Plaintiff’s award of fees, the Court finds this factor does 10 not justify an adjustment to the lodestar amount. 11 6. Factor (12): Awards in Similar Cases 12 Fee orders in similar cases support a reduction of hours. Plaintiff refers the Court to 13 Miller v. City of Portland, 868 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2017) as support on this factor. While 14 Miller holds Rule 68 offers of judgment in § 1983 cases should be interpreted based on 15 contract principles rather than § 1988, the Rule 68 offer of judgment in this case states 16 “reasonable fees and costs shall be determined by the Court.” (Doc. 119). 17 The District of Arizona has considered several Rule 68 fee motions and few have 18 awarded fees nearly 50 times the amount of judgment. See Medina v. Gilbert Mega 19 Furniture LLC, 2019 WL 3778406 (D. Ariz. 2019) (reducing lodestar by one-third for 20 duplicative, vague, and unnecessary billing entries when Plaintiff sought to recover 21 attorneys’ fees roughly thirteen times the amount recovered in settlements). While the 22 Court acknowledges the circumstances of this case have caused Plaintiff to incur a greater 23 number of hours than other cases considered by the District of Arizona, this factor supports 24 a reduction of Plaintiff’s fees. 25 7. Remaining Applicable Kerr Factors 26 Despite a “strong assumption that the ‘lodestar’ method represents a reasonable 27 fee,” Corrales-Gonzalez v. Speed Auto Wholesalers LLC, 2023 WL 3981139, at *7 (D. 28 Ariz. June 13, 2023), the Court “has discretion to adjust the lodestar upward or downward” 1 || based on the Kerr factors not subsumed in the lodestar calculation, Stetson v. Grissom, 821 || F.3d 1157, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2016). Courts must assess these factors and must articulate || “with sufficient clarity the manner in which it makes its determination.” Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 2014). The above lodestar analysis subsumes many || of the Kerr factors. The Court considers the remaining applicable factors here and finds 6 || no additional factors justify modifying the lodestar figure. 7 IV. Conclusion 8 The Court finds most of Plaintiff's requested fees to be consistent with the terms of 9|| the Rule 68 offer of judgment. However, after careful consideration of Plaintiffs timesheet || and Defendants’ objections, not all hours are reasonably incurred, and modest reductions 11 || of the lodestar are supported by consideration of the Kerr factors. Thus, the Court will |) award a reduced amount of $88,545.00 in attorneys’ fees and $283.35 in costs. 13 Accordingly, 14 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Court’s consideration of || Plaintiff's settkement offer attached to Defendants’ Response is DENIED. 16 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Doc. 124) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will award 18 || Plaintiff $88,545.00 in attorneys’ fees and $283.35 in costs. 19 Dated this 6th day of January, 2025. 20 fo - 21 C . ES 22 Honorable Ros yn ©. Silver 3 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-ll-