Gamboa v. George's Chicken Tempe LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00781
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Pascual Gamboa, No. CV-25-00781-PHX-JJT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 George's Chicken Tempe LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 At issue is Plaintiff Pascual Gamboa’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and 16 costs Against All Defendants (Doc. 18., Motion.) The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 In this case, Plaintiff alleged Defendants George’s Chicken Tempe LLC, George 19 Anderson and Tiana Awang, failed to pay Plaintiff wages in violation of the Fair Labor 20 Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) (“FLSA”), the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, 21 A.R.S. § 23-363 (“AMWA”), and the Arizona Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-350. After Plaintiff 22 properly served Defendants, Defendants never appeared to defend this action. The Court 23 entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff, awarding him $2,700 in damages. (Docs. 13, 24 14, 16.) Plaintiff now requests his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and Defendants 25 have not filed any responsive memoranda in opposition to the same. Pursuant to Local Rule 26 7.2(i), the Court may deem Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s request for 27 attorneys’ fees and costs as consent to granting Plaintiff’s Motion. Still, the Court 28 independently reviews Plaintiff’s Motion for compliance with Local Rule 54.2. 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2, a party seeking an award of attorneys’ 3 fees and related non-taxable expenses must show that the party is eligible and entitled to 4 an award, and that the requested award is reasonable. LRCiv 54.2(c). 5 a. Eligibility and Entitlement 6 A party’s eligibility and entitlement to an attorneys’ fees award depends on the 7 applicable statutory, contractual, or legal authority “upon which the movant seeks an 8 award.” LRCiv 54.2(c)(1)–(2). Here, Plaintiff is eligible and entitled to recover his 9 attorneys’ fees under the FLSA, which provides that “[t]he Court in such action shall, in 10 addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorneys’ 11 fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 12 b. Reasonableness 13 To determine whether attorneys’ fees are reasonable, courts apply the lodestar 14 method. Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 15 1990). The lodestar approach consists of two steps. Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 16 942, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2007). “First, the court establishes a lodestar by multiplying the 17 number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate,” 18 excluding from the requested amount “any hours that are excessive, redundant, or 19 otherwise unnecessary.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Then, in rare cases, “the district 20 court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a multiplier based on facts not 21 subsumed in the initial lodestar calculation.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Local Rule 22 54.2(c) lists 13 factors the Court should consider when determining reasonableness, 23 including time and labor, fees, and experience of counsel. 24 Plaintiff seeks $7,787.50 in fees already incurred, $707.61 in costs, and an 25 additional $3,648.78 in prospective collection costs. In his Motion, Plaintiff has duly 26 provided the Court with counsel’s detailed billing records, representation agreement, and 27 the other documentation supporting the request for fees and costs as required by Local Rule 28 54.2(d). (Doc. 18.1; Doc. 18-4; Doc. 18-5.) 1 Here, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel, 2 Clifford P. Bendau II, charged a rate of $445 per hour. Such a rate does not exceed the 3 market rate and is not an unreasonable reasonable. See LRCiv 54.2(c)(3); Kerr v. Screen 4 Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). Likewise, the number of hours 5 expended by Mr. Bendau—17.5—is reasonable considering the time expended to prepare 6 the complaint, default judgment, and the present motion, and effectuate service upon 7 Defendant. There is no redundancy or lack of necessity in the work reported. 8 Turning to the other factors outlined in Local Rule 54.2(c), Plaintiff states that there 9 were no novel or difficult legal issues presented by Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel was not 10 significantly precluded from other work because of this representation, and Plaintiff’s 11 counsel’s hourly rate is customary and sufficient given Plaintiff’s counsel’s experience in 12 state and federal employment wage litigation. Therefore, there is no basis to adjust 13 Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs award upward or downward. See Kerr, 526 F.2d at 70. 14 c. Anticipated Collection Costs 15 The sole remaining issue is Plaintiff’s request for prospective costs related to his 16 effort to collect the Judgment from Defendants. In this District, courts have held that 17 anticipated collection fees must be sufficiently supported. Dunson v. RMH Franchise 18 Corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-00148-RM, at Doc. 12, p. 4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2023); 19 Stamper v. Freebird Logistics, Inc., 2022 WL 4448457, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2022). 20 According to the fee agreement that Plaintiff’s counsel typically enters with Parker 21 Law Firm P.L.C. (Parker Law) to assist in collection efforts, Parker Law charges a 25% 22 contingency on all amounts recovered plus an additional $850 retainer fee. (Doc. 18-8; 23 Doc. 18-9.) Based on this typical fee arrangement, Plaintiff adequately demonstrates that 24 he will incur $3,648.78 in collection costs and fees. This requested amount is reasonable. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 In sum, Plaintiff has demonstrated eligibility and entitlement to attorneys’ fees and 27 costs in this matter as well as the reasonableness of the requested amount, and Plaintiff has 28 complied with the Local Rule 54.2 in providing the required supporting documentation. || Accordingly, the Court will award Plaintiff $12,143.89 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 4|| and Costs. (Doc. 18.) 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter Judgment 6|| in the principal amount of $12,143.89 for Plaintiff as and for his attorneys’ fees and costs, 7\|| to be paid by Defendants jointly and severally, plus interest accruing at the statutory rate. 8 || This case remains closed. 9 Dated this 16th day of September, 2025. CN

11 wef hlee— Unifgd State#District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-