Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page1lof8 Page ID #:537 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT M1 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JULIAN HOLLINS, ) Case No.: 2:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPRx 14 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S 15 ) MOTION TO CONFIRM FINAL 16 Vv. ) ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR ) FURTHER ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 17 NABORS COMPLETION & ) COSTS 18 PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a ) C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware) 19 corporation ) 20 ) [Dkt. 20] Respondent. ) 21 ) 22 23 Presently before the court is Petitioner Julian Hollins’s (“Hollins”) Petition to 24 || Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and to Enter 25 || Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. 26 || (“Nabors”). (Dkt. 20.) Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court adopts the 27 || following Order. 28 || ///
Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2of8 Page ID #:538
1 || BACKGROUND > Hollins 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 || 20-10.) 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 Hollins. (Dkt. 20-1, 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, Hollins submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, 13 || asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages 14. || (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. 15 || Code § 203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 16 || 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). (Id. [ 13, Ex. C.) 17 || Thereafter, Honorable Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq. was appointed as arbitrator 18 || (“Arbitrator”). (Id. {| 19; Ex. F.) 19 Hollins filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS Employment 20 || Rule 18. did. J 20.) On April 5, 2021, the Arbitrator granted Hollins’s motion, ruling on 21 || the issues pertaining to Nabors’ liability. (Id. 21., Ex. G.) On November 1, 2021, the 22 || matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration hearing on damages. (Id. J 23.) On February 23 || 22, 2021, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration Award. (Id., Ex. H.)) 24 Hollins then filed a motion to set the amount of attorney’s fees and costs with the 25 || Arbitrator. (Id. {| 24.) The Arbitrator accepted Hollins’s requested lodestar fees and 26 || awarded a 1.5 multiplier to the lodestar. (Id.) On May 9, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a 27 || Final Arbitration Award. (Id., Ex. I.) Through the Final Award, the Arbitrator 28
Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3of8 Page ID #:539
1 incorporated its previous findings from the Interim Award, and awarded Hollins > $177,754.69 in damages, including statutory interest continuing after November 18, 2021, 3 || at the rate of 10% annum until paid, $1,850 in statutory penalties interest under 4 California Labor Code § 226(e), $197,795.25 in attorneys’ fees, and $2,750 in costs. (Id.) 5 Hollins now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $10,849 in 6 || post-award attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this 7 confirmation action. (Mot. at 14-18; Donahoo Decl. {| 37, 45.) g || i. LEGAL STANDARD 9 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 10 Under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), upon application by a 11 || party for an order confirming an arbitration award, “the court must grant such an order 12 || unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11” of 13 || the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award, while § 11 names 14 || those for modifying or correcting one.” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 15 || 976, 582 (2008). 16 The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are “limited” and “exclusive.” 17 || Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 || “Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal 19 || court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in this 20 || regard.” Id. As relevant here, Section 10 of the FAA permits vacatur where “the 21 || arbitrators exceeded their powers... 9U.S.C.§ 10. Arbitrators “exceed their powers” 22 || “not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the 23 || award is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” Id. at 997 24 || (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To vacate an arbitration award on [the 25 || ground of manifest disregard of the law], ‘[i]t must be clear from the record that the 26 || arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.’” Biller v. Toyota Motor 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
Case 2:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:540 Corp.,668F.3d655,665(9thCir.2012) (quotingLagsteinv.CertainUnderwriters at Lloyd’s,London,607 F.3d634,641(9thCir.2010)). B. Attorneys’Fees andCosts Anemployee whoprevails inacivilactionpursuanttoCalifornia LaborCode Sections 1194(a) and226(e) is entitledtorecoveranawardof reasonable attorneys’ fees andcosts. See Cal. Lab.Code §1194(a) (“[A]nyemployee receivinglessthan the legal minimumwage orthe legalovertimecompensationapplicable tothe employee is entitledto recover...reasonable attorney’sfees,andcosts of suit.”);Cal. Lab.Code § 226(e) (“Anemployee sufferinginjuryas aresult of aknowingandintentionalfailure by anemployertocomplywith[Section226(a)] ...is entitledtoanaward of costs and reasonable attorney’sfees.”). Onceapartyhas establishedthat itis entitledtoanawardof attorneys’ fees,“[i]t remains forthe district courttodetermine whatfee is reasonable.” Hensleyv. Eckerhart, 461U.S.424,433(1983). The “startingpoint fordeterminingthe amountof areasonable fee is the numberof hours reasonablyexpendedonthe litigation multipliedbya reasonable hourlyrate.” Id. This is calledthe “lodestar”method. The fee applicantmust submit evidenceof the hours workedandthe rates claimed. Althoughthe fee applicant bears the burdenof establishing entitlement toanawardanddocumentation of the appropriate hours expendedandhourlyrates,aprevailingparty “is notrequiredto recordingreatdetail how eachminute of his timewas expended.” Id. at437n.12. The prevailing partyseeking attorneys’ fees needonly“identifythe generalsubjectmatterof his timeexpenditures” tomeetits burdenofestablishingits fee requestis reasonable. Id. This limitedobligationreflects the broaderpolicythat a“requestforattorney’sfees shouldnot resultinasecondmajorlitigation.” Id.at437. III. DISCUSSION A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page1lof8 Page ID #:537 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT M1 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JULIAN HOLLINS, ) Case No.: 2:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPRx 14 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S 15 ) MOTION TO CONFIRM FINAL 16 Vv. ) ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR ) FURTHER ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 17 NABORS COMPLETION & ) COSTS 18 PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a ) C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware) 19 corporation ) 20 ) [Dkt. 20] Respondent. ) 21 ) 22 23 Presently before the court is Petitioner Julian Hollins’s (“Hollins”) Petition to 24 || Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and to Enter 25 || Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. 26 || (“Nabors”). (Dkt. 20.) Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court adopts the 27 || following Order. 28 || ///
Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2of8 Page ID #:538
1 || BACKGROUND > Hollins 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 || 20-10.) 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 Hollins. (Dkt. 20-1, 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, Hollins submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, 13 || asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages 14. || (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. 15 || Code § 203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 16 || 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). (Id. [ 13, Ex. C.) 17 || Thereafter, Honorable Deborah Crandall Saxe, Esq. was appointed as arbitrator 18 || (“Arbitrator”). (Id. {| 19; Ex. F.) 19 Hollins filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to JAMS Employment 20 || Rule 18. did. J 20.) On April 5, 2021, the Arbitrator granted Hollins’s motion, ruling on 21 || the issues pertaining to Nabors’ liability. (Id. 21., Ex. G.) On November 1, 2021, the 22 || matter proceeded to a virtual arbitration hearing on damages. (Id. J 23.) On February 23 || 22, 2021, the Arbitrator issued an Interim Arbitration Award. (Id., Ex. H.)) 24 Hollins then filed a motion to set the amount of attorney’s fees and costs with the 25 || Arbitrator. (Id. {| 24.) The Arbitrator accepted Hollins’s requested lodestar fees and 26 || awarded a 1.5 multiplier to the lodestar. (Id.) On May 9, 2022, the Arbitrator issued a 27 || Final Arbitration Award. (Id., Ex. I.) Through the Final Award, the Arbitrator 28
Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3of8 Page ID #:539
1 incorporated its previous findings from the Interim Award, and awarded Hollins > $177,754.69 in damages, including statutory interest continuing after November 18, 2021, 3 || at the rate of 10% annum until paid, $1,850 in statutory penalties interest under 4 California Labor Code § 226(e), $197,795.25 in attorneys’ fees, and $2,750 in costs. (Id.) 5 Hollins now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $10,849 in 6 || post-award attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this 7 confirmation action. (Mot. at 14-18; Donahoo Decl. {| 37, 45.) g || i. LEGAL STANDARD 9 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 10 Under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), upon application by a 11 || party for an order confirming an arbitration award, “the court must grant such an order 12 || unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11” of 13 || the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award, while § 11 names 14 || those for modifying or correcting one.” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 15 || 976, 582 (2008). 16 The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are “limited” and “exclusive.” 17 || Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 || “Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal 19 || court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in this 20 || regard.” Id. As relevant here, Section 10 of the FAA permits vacatur where “the 21 || arbitrators exceeded their powers... 9U.S.C.§ 10. Arbitrators “exceed their powers” 22 || “not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the 23 || award is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” Id. at 997 24 || (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To vacate an arbitration award on [the 25 || ground of manifest disregard of the law], ‘[i]t must be clear from the record that the 26 || arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.’” Biller v. Toyota Motor 27 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
Case 2:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:540 Corp.,668F.3d655,665(9thCir.2012) (quotingLagsteinv.CertainUnderwriters at Lloyd’s,London,607 F.3d634,641(9thCir.2010)). B. Attorneys’Fees andCosts Anemployee whoprevails inacivilactionpursuanttoCalifornia LaborCode Sections 1194(a) and226(e) is entitledtorecoveranawardof reasonable attorneys’ fees andcosts. See Cal. Lab.Code §1194(a) (“[A]nyemployee receivinglessthan the legal minimumwage orthe legalovertimecompensationapplicable tothe employee is entitledto recover...reasonable attorney’sfees,andcosts of suit.”);Cal. Lab.Code § 226(e) (“Anemployee sufferinginjuryas aresult of aknowingandintentionalfailure by anemployertocomplywith[Section226(a)] ...is entitledtoanaward of costs and reasonable attorney’sfees.”). Onceapartyhas establishedthat itis entitledtoanawardof attorneys’ fees,“[i]t remains forthe district courttodetermine whatfee is reasonable.” Hensleyv. Eckerhart, 461U.S.424,433(1983). The “startingpoint fordeterminingthe amountof areasonable fee is the numberof hours reasonablyexpendedonthe litigation multipliedbya reasonable hourlyrate.” Id. This is calledthe “lodestar”method. The fee applicantmust submit evidenceof the hours workedandthe rates claimed. Althoughthe fee applicant bears the burdenof establishing entitlement toanawardanddocumentation of the appropriate hours expendedandhourlyrates,aprevailingparty “is notrequiredto recordingreatdetail how eachminute of his timewas expended.” Id. at437n.12. The prevailing partyseeking attorneys’ fees needonly“identifythe generalsubjectmatterof his timeexpenditures” tomeetits burdenofestablishingits fee requestis reasonable. Id. This limitedobligationreflects the broaderpolicythat a“requestforattorney’sfees shouldnot resultinasecondmajorlitigation.” Id.at437. III. DISCUSSION A. Confirmation of ArbitrationAward 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
Case 2:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:541 Nabors contends thatthe Arbitrator exhibited amanifestdisregard of the law throughseveralallegederrors withrespecttoNabors’ liability and damages. (Dkt. 21, Opp. at1.) Specifically, Nabors argues thatthe Arbitrator erredin the following: (1) rejecting, and not giving any deference to, the Labor Commissioner’s decision that Nabors’ subject work in the [Port of Long Beach] was “not within the jurisdiction of California Public WorkLaw”andthereforeexemptfrom[CaliforniaLaborCode§1720, et seq.]; and (2) deeming the subject work as a public work and awarding [Hollins] prevailing wages even though there are no prevailing wage rates—or applicable classifications—established by theDepartmentofIndustrialRelations(“DIR”)for[Hollins’s]oilfield work. (Id.) Nabors,however,fails toidentifyanyinstances in the recordwhere the Arbitrator “recognizedthe applicable law andthen ignoredit.” See Biller,668F.3dat665. The allegederrors are basedonmisinterpretationormisapplication of the law—suchlegal errors are insufficienttovacate anArbitrationAward. “The riskthatarbitratorsmay construethe governinglaw imperfectlyinthe courseofdelivering adecisionthat attempts in goodfaith tointerpret the relevant law,or maymakeerrors withrespectto the evidenceonwhich theybase their rulings, is ariskthateverypartytoarbitration assumes,andsuchlegalandfactualerrors lie faroutside the categoryof conduct embracedby§10(a)(4).” Kyocera,341F.3dat1003. Finding no manifestdisregardof the law exhibited inthe Arbitration Award,the courtdeclinestovacate the Arbitration Award. The courttherefore grants Hollins’sPetitiontoconfirm the ArbitrationAward. B. Attorneys’Fees andCosts As the prevailingpartyinthis action, Hollinsis entitled toreasonable attorneys’ fees andcosts,includingfees incurredinconnectionwiththe confirmationaction. See Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 PageGof8 Page ID #:542
1 Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194(a), 226(e).! Thus, the only issue before the court is whether the > requested fees and costs are reasonable. 3 Hollins seeks $10,849 in attorneys’ fees. The court finds, and Nabors does not 4 dispute, that the rates set forth by Hollins’s counsel are within the range of reasonable 5 || tates for attorneys in the local community, taking into consideration the “experience, 6 || Skill and reputation of the attorney.” Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 908 (9th Cir. 1995). Specifically, the court finds that the following rates are 7 P y. g || reasonable: 9 e Richard E. Donahoo, Attorney; $700/hour e R. Chase Donahoo, Attorney: $425/hour 10 e Sarah L. Kokonas, Attorney: $495/hour 11 With respect to the time spent for work performed on this matter, Hollins’s 12 counsel has submitted detailed billing records of work performed and an accompanying 13 declaration. (See Donahoo Decl. 37-39; 42-44 & Ex. J.) Hollins’s motion and Richard 14 Donahoo’s declaration estimate that counsel spent a total of 16.8 hours on tasks related to 15 the post-award confirmation action. (Mot. at 17; Donahoo Decl. 37.) Of these hours, 16 Vv Hollins claims that 5.8 hours are attributable to Richard Donahoo, 10.8 hours are
8 attributable to R. Chase Donahoo, 0.2 hours are attributable to Sarah Kokonas, and 3.0
19 29 || ' 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., 22 || No. 15-cv-3436-DDP-JPR, 2021 WL 3184226, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2021), Ronquillo 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 Hollins’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
Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page 7of8 Page ID #:543
1 hours are attributable to time Richard Donahoo anticipated he would spend preparing a > reply and anticipated judgment. (Mot. at 16-17; Donahoo Decl. 37-39, 42-44.) The 3, || court has adjusted these hours for reasonableness. Specifically, the court has subtracted 4 || 33 hours from the amount of time billed by R. Chase Donahoo in connection with the 5 || Preparation of the petition and motion to confirm the arbitration award. Given that the 6 || court decided to take this matter under submission without a hearing, the court has 7 || subtracted 0.8 hours from the amount of time Richard Donahoo anticipated billing for g || preparing for and attending the hearing. 9 Applying the approved rates to the adjusted hours, the lodestar method yields the 19 || following result: ul 12 || Richard & Donahoo |s700_ 80s 16 v With these adjustments, the chart above reflects the reasonable number of hours
18 expended by counsel in relation to the confirmation action and request for post-award 19 fees. Thus, is entitled to $8,886.50 in fees and $402 for the cost of filing the complaint. 70 IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Hollins’ Petition to Confirm the > Arbitration Award. The Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Arbitrator Hon. 23 Deborah Crandall Saxe on May 9, 2022, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058996, is >A confirmed. This Court shall enter judgment in favor of Julian Hollins and against Nabors 25 in the amount of $177,754.69, plus continuing interest after November 18, 2021, at 10% 26 || annum until paid, $1,850 in statutory penalties, $197,795.25 in attorneys’ fees, and $2,750 97 || incosts as awarded by the Arbitrator. 28
Case #:22-cv-03278-DDP-JPR Document 27 Filed 03/22/23 Page8of8 Page ID#:544
1 The court further GRANTS Hollins’ request for post-award attorneys’ fees in the > || amount of $8,886.50 and for costs in the amount of $402. 3 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: March 22, 2023 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