Rodriguez v. Pride Dealer Services Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

9 Mayra Rodriguez, No. CV-23-01955-PHX-ROS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Pride Dealer Services Inc., a Florida 13 corporation,

14 Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 16 (“Motion”) (Doc. 18) seeking $22,832.09 in fees and costs. For the reasons that follow, 17 the Court will grant Plaintiff’s award of fees and costs in a reduced amount of $12,100.11. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff filed this suit for unpaid wages, overtime, and minimum wages under the 20 Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”), and 21 the Arizona Wage Act (“AWA”). (Doc. 1). Defendant Pride Dealer Services, Inc. was 22 properly served (Doc. 9) but failed to answer or otherwise participate in the action. The 23 Court granted default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $47,639.00. (Doc. 16). 24 ATTORNEYS’ FEES 25 26 I. ENTITLEMENT AND ELIGIBILITY TO FEES Plaintiff requests $22,270.00 in attorneys’ fees and $562.09 in costs in accordance 27 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2, and 28 1 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)—the FLSA’s fee-shifting provision that “provides for attorney fees and 2 costs to a successful plaintiff.” Haworth v. State of Nev., 56 F.3d 1048, 1050 n.1 (9th Cir. 3 1995). The Court finds Plaintiff is eligible for, and entitled to, attorneys’ fees. 4 The FLSA requires courts to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to successful 5 plaintiffs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); see also Houser v. Matson, 447 F.2d 860, 863 (9th Cir. 6 1971) (“[The statute] provides that an award of attorney’s fee ‘shall’ be made to the 7 successful plaintiff. The award of an attorney’s fee is mandatory.”). As the prevailing 8 party in the present FLSA action, (Doc. 16), Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees. 9 Although Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to an award of fees, Plaintiff is not 10 entitled to payment for time spent in preparing the instant Motion. The Ninth Circuit 11 generally permits an award of fees for time expended in preparing a motion for attorneys’ 12 fees. See In re Nucorp Energy, Inc., 764 F.2d 655, 659-60 (9th Cir. 1985) (“In statutory 13 fee cases, federal courts, including our own, have uniformly held that time spent in 14 establishing the entitlement to and amount of the fee is compensable.”); Gary v. Carbon 15 Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 479 (D. Ariz. 2019) (citing In re Nucorp, 764 F.2d 16 at 660) (“[I]t would be inconsistent to dilute a fees award by refusing to compensate 17 attorneys for the time they reasonably spent in establishing their rightful claim to the fee.”). 18 However, to receive an award for fees associated with preparing an attorneys’ fees motion, 19 strict compliance with this Court’s Local Rules is required. 20 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2(c)(2) provides: “If the moving party claims 21 entitlement to fees for preparing the motion and memorandum for award of attorneys’ fees 22 and related non-taxable expenses, such party also must cite the applicable legal authority 23 supporting such specific request.” (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff requests fees for 7.4 24 hours billed in preparing the instant Motion and its supporting documents.1 Plaintiff does 25 not, however, cite to any applicable legal authority supporting this request. The Court finds 26 Plaintiff is not entitled to payment for the 7.4 hours spent in preparing this Motion. Thus, 27 1 The Court is referring to four specific time entries between May 13 and May 17, 2024. 28 (See Doc. 18-1, Ex. A at 8-9). These time entries include drafting the Motion, revising it, drafting supporting documents such as declarations, and preparing exhibits. 1 preliminarily, the Court will reduce the fee award by $2,120.00. See Moshir v. Automobili 2 Lamborghini Am. LLC, 927 F. Supp. 2d 789, 803–04 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“[Plaintiff] has failed 3 to specifically cite any applicable legal authority supporting his claim of entitlement to fees 4 for preparing the motion and memorandum for award of attorneys’ fees, as required by 5 LRCiv 54.2(c)(2) .... Accordingly, [Plaintiff] has not shown that he is entitled to recovery 6 for the 22.6 hours of attorney time spent in preparing his motion for fees and costs. The 7 court will reduce the reasonable hours component of the lodestar calculation 8 accordingly.”); see also Croomes v. Stream Glob. Servs.-AZ, Inc., No. CV11-0141-PHX- 9 JAT, 2012 WL 1247021, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 13, 2012) (denying defendant’s request for 10 fees incurred in preparing motion for fees and costs because defendant failed to cite any 11 legal authority supporting request); see also J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Margaillan, No. 12 CIV 13-312-TUC-CKJ, 2014 WL 169801, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 15, 2014) (“No authority 13 having been provided for an award for the preparation of the pending motion, the Court 14 will reduce the requested award by $450.00 (2.75 hours), the amount requested for the 15 preparation of the pending motion.”). 16 The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees, excluding those incurred in 17 preparing the instant Motion. 18 II. REASONABLENESS OF REQUESTED AWARD 19 While the FLSA mandates an award of attorneys’ fees to a successful plaintiff, 20 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), “the amount of the award is within the discretion of the court,” Houser 21 v. Matson, 447 F.2d 860, 863 (9th Cir. 1971). Courts “employ the ‘lodestar’ method to 22 determine a reasonable attorney’s fees award.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 23 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Fischer v. SJB–P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000)). 24 Courts calculate the lodestar figure by “multiplying the number of hours reasonably 25 expended on a case by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. 26 After calculating the lodestar figure, a Court may reduce or increase the award based 27 on a variety of factors. Those factors include: (1) the time and labor required, (2) the 28 novelty and difficulty of the legal questions involved, (3) the skill required to perform the 1 legal service properly, (4) other employment precluded due to acceptance of the case, (5) 2 the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed 3 by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results obtained, (9) the 4 experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case, 5 (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and (12) awards 6 in similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975) (“Kerr 7 factors”).2 The lodestar calculation normally subsumes some of these factors such that the 8 Court need not consider them again after determining the lodestar. See Gonzalez v. City of 9 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir. 2013) (identifying factors often considered when 10 calculating lodestar). 11 A. Hourly Rates 12 The first question is whether Plaintiff’s asserted rate is reasonable. “A reasonable 13 hourly rate is ordinarily the prevailing market rate in the relevant community.” Sw. Fair 14 Hous. Council v. WG Scottsdale LLC, No. 19-00180, 2022 WL 16715613 at *3 (D. Ariz. 15 Nov. 4, 2022) (citing Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099). And “the burden is on the fee applicant to 16 produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits—that the 17 requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by 18 lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 19 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). 20 Plaintiff’s Counsel, Ty Frankel and Patti Syverson, are partners at Frankel Syverson 21 PLLC with decades of experience in wage and hour law litigation. (Doc. 18-1 at 2-3). 22 According to Mr. Frankel’s declaration, he and Ms. Syverson have practiced law in 23 Arizona since 2009 and 2000, respectively. (Doc. 18-1 at 2-3). Plaintiff asserts a $400 per 24 hour billing rate for both Mr. Frankel and Ms. Syverson (Doc. 18 at 4), supported by Mr. 25 Frankel’s declaration outlining the extent of their experience and stating the $400 rate is 26 reasonable (Doc. 18-1). Additionally, Plaintiff asserts a $190 hourly billing rate for the 27 2 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 firm’s paralegal, David Streyle, who has allegedly been working as a paralegal for over 20 2 years. (Doc. 18-1 at 4, 8). 3 According to Mr. Frankel, his and Ms. Syverson’s $400 hourly rate, along with Mr. 4 Streyle’s $190 hourly rate, “are generally in accordance with the rates charged by other 5 lawyers and paralegals in this community with similar experience and education.” 6 (Doc. 18-1 at 9). In 2020, the District of Arizona twice awarded fees to Plaintiff’s Counsel 7 in FLSA cases at hourly rates of $350-$400 for attorneys Frankel and Syverson and $190 8 for paralegal Streyle. See Alvarez v. Direct Energy Bus. Mktg. LLC, No. CV-16-03657- 9 PHX-SPL, Doc. 272-1; see also Shoults v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA) Inc., No. CV-19-02408- 10 PHX-GMS, Docs. 327-2, 330. The prevailing rates for FLSA cases in the District of 11 Arizona and Counsel’s experience support their requested hourly rates. Thus, the Court 12 finds the $400 hourly attorney rate and the $190 hourly paralegal rate to be reasonable. 13 B. Hours Expended 14 Under the lodestar method, the prevailing party is generally entitled to recover fees 15 for “every item of service which, at the time rendered, would have been undertaken by a 16 reasonable and prudent lawyer to advance or protect his client’s interest.” Gary v. Carbon 17 Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 486 (D. Ariz. 2019) (quoting Twin City Sportservice 18 v. Charles O. Finley & Co., 676 F.2d 1291, 1313 (9th Cir. 1982)). Courts may “exclude 19 from this initial fee calculation hours that were not reasonably expended.” Hensley v. 20 Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983) (internal quotations omitted); see also McKown v. 21 City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In determining the appropriate 22 number of hours to be included in a lodestar calculation, the district court should exclude 23 hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”). 24 Unreasonable hours may be excluded in one of two ways. Gonzalez v. City of 25 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2013). First, courts may exclude unreasonable 26 hours after “conduct[ing] an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request[.]’” Id. (internal 27 quotation marks omitted). Second, courts “faced with a massive fee application” may 28 “make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the 1 final lodestar figure as a practical means of excluding non-compensable hours from a fee 2 application.” Id. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also Fox v. Vice, 563 3 U.S. 826, 838 (2011) (“[T]rial courts need not, and indeed should not, become green- 4 eyeshade accountants. The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough 5 justice, not to achieve auditing perfection. So trial courts may take into account their overall 6 sense of a suit, and may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time.”). 7 When a district court excludes hours, it must explain how it came up with the amount of 8 an attorneys’ fees award. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 9 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The explanation need not be elaborate, but it must be comprehensible ... 10 Where the difference between the lawyer’s request and the court’s award is relatively 11 small, a somewhat cursory explanation will suffice. But where the disparity is larger, a 12 more specific articulation of the court’s reasoning is expected.” (citations omitted). 13 Plaintiff submits a task-based itemized statement of time Plaintiff’s Counsel 14 expended on this case. (Doc. 18-1, Ex. A). The itemized statement lists Counsel’s total 15 number of hours expended as 68.8 hours. (Id.). Having carefully considered the time and 16 labor reasonably required for each task in Plaintiff’s itemized statement, the Court finds 17 the hours expended proffered by Plaintiff are not reasonable. Accordingly, the Court will 18 decrease the lodestar amount by reducing the number of hours the Court deems 19 unreasonable as set forth in the table attached to this Order, infra (the “Table”). The 20 reduction of the lodestar amount is supported by consideration of the relevant Kerr factors 21 discussed below. 22 1. Factors (1), (2), and (3): Time, Difficulty, and Skill 23 The first three Kerr factors courts consider are (1) the time and labor required, (2) 24 the novelty and difficulty of the legal questions involved, and (3) the skill required to 25 perform the legal service properly. 26 As an initial matter, parties may not recover fees for tasks performed by attorneys 27 and paralegals which are clerical or administrative in nature. Gary v. Carbon Cycle 28 Arizona LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 487 (D. Ariz. 2019); see Neil v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1 495 Fed.Appx. 845, 847 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that “the district court did not abuse its 2 discretion in declining to award [ ] attorney’s fees for purely clerical tasks such as filing 3 documents and preparing and serving summons”); see also Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 4 906, 921 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that clerical tasks such as filing and document 5 organization “should have been subsumed in firm overhead rather than billed at paralegal 6 rates”); see also Pearson v. Nat’l Credit Sys., Inc., No. 2: CV-10-0526-PHX-MHM, 2010 7 WL 5146805, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13. 2010) (“[T]asks which are clerical in nature are not 8 recoverable.”). 9 Non-compensable clerical or administrative tasks include, but are not limited to: (1) 10 reviewing Court-generated notices; (2) scheduling dates and deadlines; (3) calendaring 11 dates and deadlines; (4) notifying a client of dates and deadlines; (5) preparing documents 12 for filing with the Court; (6) filing documents with the Court; (7) informing a client that a 13 document has been filed; (8) personally delivering documents; (9) bates stamping and other 14 labeling of documents; (10) maintaining and pulling files; (11) copying, printing, and 15 scanning documents; receiving, downloading, and emailing documents; and (12) 16 communicating with Court staff. I.T. ex rel. Renee T. v. Dep’t of Educ., Hawaii, 18 F. 17 Supp. 3d 1047, 1062 (D. Haw. 2014), aff’d sub nom. I. T. by & through Renee & Floyd T. 18 v. Dep’t of Educ., Hawaii, 700 F. App’x 596 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted). 19 Here, Counsel seeks compensation for 8.4 hours of clerical and administrative tasks 20 including “prepar[ing] civil cover sheet and summons,” “complet[ing] electronic filing,” 21 submitting documents to process server, reviewing orders from the Court, requesting 22 records, mailing documents, tracking mail, and preparing documents for filing with the 23 Court. Consequently, Counsel may not recover for these tasks because they “should have 24 been subsumed in firm overhead.” Nadarajah, 569 F.3d at 921. The Table attached 25 denotes all submitted time entries containing clerical and administrative tasks in green 26 coloring and accordingly lists a reduction in the amount billed. Thus, the Court will reduce 27 the number of hours expended by an additional 8.4 hours to account for non-compensable 28 clerical and administrative tasks. 1 Additionally, the Court finds that a further reduction of hours is warranted based on 2 the relatively low complexity of the case and the correspondingly diminished demands 3 required of Counsel who have substantial expertise in the law. Plaintiff contends the time 4 and labor expended was reasonable “given the course of the litigation” as related to matters 5 such as performing preliminary legal research, filing a Complaint, dealing with an evasive 6 defendant, and preparing a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 18 at 5-6). This case is a 7 relatively straightforward one dealing simply with a plaintiff who was not paid her wages 8 by her employer, as evidenced by the 10-page Complaint. Counsel billed over 10 hours 9 for tasks performed regarding relatively simple service issues, such as a 3-page motion for 10 alternative service. Defendant never appeared, and Plaintiff needed not litigate the case. 11 Indeed, Plaintiff applied for default (another straightforward procedure) and was 12 subsequently required to show cause for failing to timely file a motion for default judgment. 13 Eventually, Plaintiff moved for default judgment, and the case ended. 14 In other words, Counsel performed the bare minimum in order to receive a 15 judgment, yet claims compensation for an enormous number of hours typical only in 16 complex FLSA cases. Consequently, the Court will further reduce the fee award by 17 adjusting the unreasonable entries as denoted in purple coloring in the Table, marking a 34 18 percent reduction in compensable hours (after subtracting the non-compensable fees 19 motion and clerical tasks). See Sclafani v. Allianceone Receivables Mgmt., No. 09-61675- 20 CIV, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142771, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 28, 2011) (reducing Plaintiff’s 21 compensable hours by 30 percent because it “was not a particularly novel or complicated 22 case,” “it should not have required the claimed degree of time and labor,” and Counsel “has 23 extensive experience with FDCPA cases”). 24 2. Factor (9): Experience, Reputation, and Ability of the Attorneys 25 The Court’s reduction of hours is further supported by Counsel’s exceptional 26 experience, reputation, and ability. Mr. Frankel’s states Counsel has decades of experience 27 in wage and hour law. Indeed, the Court finds that Counsel’s extensive experience and 28 competency in matters at bar is commensurate with Counsel’s ability to handle routine 1 wage cases in an efficient manner. Counsel’s experience and reputation—while entitling 2 them to charge higher rates—enables Counsel to perform tasks quicker than their less- 3 seasoned counterparts. See Grey v. Chater, No. 95 CIV. 8847 (JFK), 1997 WL 12806, at 4 *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 1997) (finding the number of hours spent by counsel who was 5 experienced in Social Security benefits law was excessive in light of the diminished 6 complexity of the case and reducing the hours from 65.03 to 30). 7 3. Factor (12): Awards in Similar Cases 8 Fee orders in similar cases support a reduction of hours. The District of Arizona 9 has considered numerous motions for attorneys’ fees involving routine FLSA cases where 10 a defendant has defaulted and the court has granted plaintiff a default judgment; counsel in 11 these cases, experienced and inexperienced alike, have never come close to expending and 12 requesting the 68.8 hours Counsel claims here. See Romero v. Steel Roots LLC, No. CV- 13 23-01033-PHX-ROS, 2024 WL 2389353, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2024) (19.1 hours); 14 Mumphrey v. Good Neighbor Cmty. Servs. LLC, No. CV-23-00923-PHX-ROS, 2023 WL 15 8702103, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2023) (11.1 hours); Aguirre v. Custom Image Pros LLC, 16 No. CV-23-00334-PHX-MTL, 2023 WL 5932805, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12, 2023) (22.3 17 hours); Aguirre v. Custom Image Pros LLC, No. CV-23-00419-PHX-ROS, Doc. 20, (D. 18 Ariz. Nov. 16, 2023) (12.7 hours); Ramos v. Probuilds LLC, No. CV-23-01111-PHX- 19 SMM, 2024 WL 1078078, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2024), report and recommendation 20 adopted, No. CV-23-01111-PHX-SMM, 2024 WL 1071204 (D. Ariz. Mar. 12, 2024) (15.3 21 hours) ; Xalamihua v. GGC Legacy Janitorial Servs. LLC, No. CV-23-00009-TUC-BGM, 22 2024 WL 942101 at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 5, 2024) (14.7 hours); Johnson v. Colvin, No. CV- 23 23-00623-PHX-JZB, 2024 WL 3488405 (D. Ariz. June 13, 2024), report and 24 recommendation adopted, No. CV-23-00623-PHX-SMM (JZB), 2024 WL 3471317 at *2 25 (D. Ariz. July 19, 2024) (32.3 hours); Coe v. Hirsch, No. CV-21-00478-PHX-SMM- 26 MTM, 2022 WL 508841, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 21, 2022) (14.6 hours); Peralta v. Custom 27 Image Pros LLC, No. CV-23-00358-PHX-JAT, 2024 WL 620901 at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 28 2024) (10.9 hours); Rodriguez v. D’Auto Boys LLC, No. CV2201420PHXSMMJZB, 2024 1 WL 1861247, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 5, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2 CV2201420PHXSMMJZB, 2024 WL 1856557 (D. Ariz. Apr. 29, 2024) (14 hours); 3 Castro v. C&C Verde LLC, No. CV-18-04715-PHX-JZB, 2019 WL 13244383, at *2 (D. 4 Ariz. Oct. 9, 2019) (14.2 hours). 5 Counsel’s proffer of 68.8 hours substantially exceeds hours expended in similar 6 FLSA cases within this District where default judgment swiftly disposes of the case 7 following a defendant’s failure to litigate the case. Thus, the Court’s reduction in the 8 number of hours to 34.9 hours is fair, reasonable, and consistent with (and comparatively 9 generous to) other similar cases. The Court finds the lodestar figure is $11,538.02 (34.9 10 hours at rates of $400 and $190). 11 C. Remaining Applicable Kerr Factors 12 Despite a “strong assumption that the ‘lodestar’ method represents a reasonable 13 fee,” Corrales-Gonzalez v. Speed Auto Wholesalers LLC, 2023 WL 3981139, at *7 (D. 14 Ariz. June 13, 2023), the Court “has discretion to adjust the lodestar upward or downward” 15 based on the Kerr factors not subsumed in the lodestar calculation, Stetson v. Grissom, 821 16 F.3d 1157, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2016). Courts must assess these factors and must articulate 17 “with sufficient clarity the manner in which it makes its determination.” Carter v. Caleb 18 Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 2014). The above lodestar analysis subsumes many 19 of the Kerr factors. The Court considers the remaining applicable factors here and finds 20 none justify adjusting the lodestar figure. 21 Plaintiff argues Counsel should be awarded its full fees based on their contingency 22 fee agreement,3 the favorable result obtained, and the “undesirability” of the case based on 23 the “relatively small” amount involved in the dispute. The Court acknowledges Counsel’s 24 efforts in obtaining a favorable result for Plaintiff; however, “the quality of an attorney’s 25

26 3 Plaintiff’s fee agreement with Counsel (Doc. 18-1, Ex. B) states “[i]f client recovers monies in the case, the Firm shall be entitled to the greater of 33-1/3% of the amount 27 ultimately recovered or the actual amount of fees incurred (based on the attorney’s customary hourly rate(s) and hours expended).” Although the Court is not asked to 28 determine the amount owed to Counsel by Plaintiff, it notes that the amount of Counsel’s reasonable fees is less than 33-1/3% of the amount of the judgment. 1 performance generally should not be used to adjust the lodestar figure … because 2 considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party’s counsel’s representation 3 normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate. Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 4 U.S. 542, 553 (2010) (internal quotation omitted). Additionally, based on the allegations, 5 Plaintiff’s judgment of $47,639.00 is not an “undesirable” sum. Therefore, the Court finds 6 no adjustment to the lodestar amount is necessary. 7 D. Conclusion 8 The Court finds Counsel is not entitled to recover (1) tasks related to preparing the 9 instant motion and (2) clerical/administrative tasks. Additionally, the Court finds Counsel 10 expended an unreasonable number of hours based on the simplicity of the case, Counsel’s 11 extensive knowledge and experience in handling wage cases, and awards in similar cases 12 previously granted by this District. Accordingly, a reduction in the number of hours from 13 68.8 to 34.9 is justified. Having found the $400 hourly attorney rate and the $190 hourly 14 paralegal rate reasonable, the Court will award attorney’ fees in the amount of $11,538.02. 15 COSTS 16 In addition to attorneys’ fees, Plaintiff requests $562.09 in out-of-pocket costs, Mot. 17 at 7, detailed in Mr. Frankel’s Declaration (Doc. 18-1 at 12). Reasonable out-of-pocket 18 expenses are awardable as “costs of the action” under the FLSA. See Van Dyke v. BTS 19 Container Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 2997105, at *2 (D. Or. Sept. 15, 2009). The Court finds 20 Plaintiff’s requested out-of-pocket costs—consisting of filing fees, service of process costs, 21 and postage costs—reasonable and will award Plaintiff $562.09 in costs. 22 Accordingly, 23 … 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 ! IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 2 (Doc. 18) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiff 3 $11,538.02 in attorneys’ fees and $562.09 in costs. Dated this 24th day of September, 2024. —— 6 / — 7 Ny JOE Honorable Roslyn ©. Silver 8 Senior United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-12-

Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 13 of 22 Date Atty Description Hours Rate Amount Reduction Reduced Percentage Amount 9/11/2023 TDF Teleconference with Mayra Rodriguez 0.50 $400.00 $200.00 0% $200.00 regarding (Redacted) 9/12/2023 TDF Analyze documents regarding potential 1.50 $400.00 $600.00 50% $300.00 claims against Pride Dealer Services 9/12/2023 TDF Communications with Rodriguez regarding 0.50 $400.00 $200.00 0% $200.00 (Redacted) 9/13/2023 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 (Redacted) 9/13/2023 TDF Analyze documents 1.00 $400.00 $400.00 50% $200.00 9/14/2023 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 (Redacted) 9/14/2023 TDF Draft complaint 1.00 $400.00 $400.00 50% $200.00 9/15/2023 TDF Multiple correspondence with Rodriguez 0.50 $400.00 $200.00 0% $200.00 regarding (Redacted) 9/15/2023 TDF Draft complaint 2.50 $400.00 $1,000.00 50% $500.00 9/17/2023 PNS Review client documents and review draft 1.00 $400.00 $400.00 50% $200.00 complaint 9/18/2023 TDF Finalize complaint 1.50 $400.00 $600.00 50% $300.00 9/18/2023 DJS Proof, revise and finalize complaint (1.2); 1.70 $190.00 $323.00 24% $77.52 Prepare civil cover sheet and summons (.2); Complete electronic filing of same (.2); Exchange email with T. Frankel re same (.1) 9/18/2023 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.50 $400.00 $200.00 0% $200.00 (Redacted) 9/18/2023 PNS Telephone conference with Mr. Frankel 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 regarding allegations 9/20/2023 DJS Submit complaint and related case 0.50 $190.00 $95.00 100% $0.00 initiating documents to Liddy Legal Support Services to be served 9/20/2023 PNS Review initial orders from court 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 100% $0.00 Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 14 of 22 9/25/2023 DJS Exchange email with T. Frankel re status 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 of service of complaint and case initiating documents 9/29/2023 DJS Telephone conference with Liddy re status 0.20 $190.00 $38.00 0% $38.00 of service of complaint (.1); Exchange email with T. Frankel re same (.1) 9/29/2023 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 (Redacted) 10/2/2023 DJS Exchange email with Brett Long of Liddy re 0.20 $190.00 $38.00 0% $38.00 status of service of complaint and case initiating documents (.1); Exchange email with T. Frankel and P. Syverson re same (.1) 10/2/2023 PNS Discuss service of process issues 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 10/6/2023 DJS Prepare email to T. Frankel and P. 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 Syverson re status of service of complaint and case initiating documents 10/10/2023 DJS Exchange email with Brett Long of Liddy 0.30 $190.00 $57.00 0% $57.00 and re failed service and next steps (.2); Exchange email with T. Frankel re same (.1) 10/10/2023 TDF Research regarding alternative service 0.50 $400.00 $200.00 0% $200.00 10/10/2023 PNS Review email regarding service of process 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 50% $20.00 issues 10/11/2023 TDF Research regarding motion for alternative 2.00 $400.00 $800.00 50% $400.00 service 10/12/2023 TDF Draft motion for alternative service 2.00 $400.00 $800.00 50% $400.00 10/12/2023 TDF Correspondence to Rodriguez regarding 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 (Redacted) Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 15 of 22 10/12/2023 DJS Exchange email with Brett of Liddy re 0.20 $190.00 $38.00 0% $38.00 attempted service and affidavit re same (.1); Prepare email to T. Frankel re same (.1) 10/12/2023 PNS Review affidavit regarding attempted 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 service 10/13/2023 TDF Draft motion for alternative service 3.00 $400.00 $1,200.00 50% $600.00 10/13/2023 PNS Review motion for alternative service 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 50% $40.00 10/16/2023 TDF Finalize motion for alternative service 0.50 $400.00 $200.00 50% $100.00 10/16/2023 PNS Discuss motion for alternative service with 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 Mr. Frankel

10/16/2023 DJS Review and revise draft motion for 1.20 $190.00 $228.00 50% $114.00 alternative service, exhibits and proposed order (.7); Communicate with T. Frankel re same (.1); Revise and finalize same (.2); Electronically file same (.1); Prepare email Judge Silver with Word version of proposed order (.1) 10/17/2023 TDF Review order regarding alternative service 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 100% $0.00 10/17/2023 DJS Begin process to request documentation 0.20 $190.00 $38.00 50% $19.00 via FOIA / public records requests from DOL and ICA (.1); Exchange email with T. Frankel re same (.1) 10/18/2023 DJS Complete mailing of Complaint and case 1.00 $190.00 $190.00 100% $0.00 initiating documents via Certified Mail (.4); Communicate with T. Frankel re same (.2); Travel to and from post office re same (.4) Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 16 of 22 10/18/2023 DJS Confer with T. Frankel re certified mailing, 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 50% $9.50 tracking same, filing notice of service and docketing answer date 10/24/2023 DJS Track 10/18/23 certified mailing of 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 100% $0.00 complaint and case initiating documents; Exchange email with T. Frankel re same 10/24/2023 DJS Prepare email to DOL to obtain documents 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 50% $9.50 pursuant to Freedom of Information Act - Public Records Request 10/24/2023 DJS Review email acknowledgement from 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 50% $9.50 Glenn Lewis of DOL re FOIA Public Records Request 10/24/2023 DJS Prepare and submit public records request 0.30 $190.00 $57.00 100% $0.00 form to Industrial Commission of Arizona

10/26/2023 DJS Track 10/18/23 certified mailing of 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 100% $0.00 complaint and case initiating documents; Exchange email with T. Frankel re same 10/26/2023 DJS Communicate with T. Frankel re Notice of 0.30 $190.00 $57.00 50% $28.50 Alternative Service (.1); Prepare same (.1); Electronically file same (.1) 10/26/2023 TDF Draft notice of service 0.30 $400.00 $120.00 0% $120.00 10/26/2023 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 (Redacted) 10/26/2023 PNS Discuss alternative service issues with T. 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 50% $20.00 Frankel Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 17 of 22 10/30/2023 DJS Review USPS tracking status of certified 0.50 $190.00 $95.00 50% $47.50 mail (.1); Exchange email with T. Frankel re same and docketing response (.2); Review FRCP re same (.2) 10/30/2023 TDF Evaluate status of service 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 100% $0.00 10/30/2023 PNS Email with Mr. Frankel regarding service 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 issues 11/8/2023 DJS Review Acknowledgement letter and 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 Interim Response letters from U.S. DOL re records request and confer with T. Frankel re same 11/16/2023 DJS Review USPS tracking re service by mail 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 100% $0.00 and exchange email with T. Frankel re same 11/27/2023 TDF Research regarding application for default 0.40 $400.00 $160.00 0% $160.00 judgment 11/30/2023 DJS Draft application for default and supporting 1.00 $190.00 $190.00 0% $190.00 affidavit 11/30/2023 TDF Analyze issues regarding application for 0.40 $400.00 $160.00 0% $160.00 default and timing for submission 11/30/2023 TDF Correspondence to Rodriguez regarding 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 (Redacted) 11/30/2023 PNS Discuss timing for filing for default 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 judgment with T. Frankel 12/1/2023 TDF Communications with Rodriguez regarding 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 (Redacted) 12/4/2023 DJS Review email from Christina Sanchez of 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 AZICA re public records request 12/6/2023 DJS Prepare email to Crystal Thompson of 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 DOL re narrowing scope of request to Compliance Action Reports and case narratives Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 18 of 22 12/12/2023 TDF Finalize application for default, supporting 2.00 $400.00 $800.00 50% $400.00 exhibits, and obtain notarization regarding same 12/12/2023 PNS Review application of default and discuss 0.50 $400.00 $200.00 50% $100.00 filing same 12/12/2023 DJS Finalize application for default and exhibit 0.80 $190.00 $152.00 63% $96.00 (.2); Exchange email with T. Frankel re same (.1); Electronically file same (.1); Complete mailing of hard copy of filing to Defendant (.4) 12/12/2023 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 (Redacted) 12/14/2023 TDF Review order regarding default 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 100% $0.00 12/14/2023 TDF Research regarding motion for default 1.00 $400.00 $400.00 50% $200.00 judgment 12/14/2023 DJS Review email from Crystal Thompson of 0.20 $190.00 $38.00 0% $38.00 U.S. DOL re FOIA requests and search DOL Data Enforcement database to identify specific case ID numbers requesting in response to FOIA request (.1); Prepare email to Thompson re same (.1) 12/14/2023 PNS Review default entered by clerk and 0.30 $400.00 $120.00 100% $0.00 discuss with Mr. Frankel 1/2/2024 DJS Review email and attached final response 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 correspondence from Federal Department of Labor re FOIA request 1/3/2024 DJS Review complaint and client documents 0.50 $190.00 $95.00 50% $47.50 and begin preparing damages estimate Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 19 of 22 1/4/2024 DJS Review complaint and client documents 1.40 $190.00 $266.00 0% $266.00 and complete preparation of damages estimate (1.3); Prepare email to T. Frankel re same (.1) 1/4/2024 DJS Review email and attachment from 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 Industrial Commission of Arizona re public records request 1/9/2024 TDF Analysis regarding damages for motion for 0.50 $400.00 $200.00 0% $200.00 default 1/9/2024 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 (Redacted) 1/9/2024 DJS Telephone call to Mayra Rodriguez re 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 (Redacted) 1/10/2024 DJS Exchange email with T. Frankel re attempt 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 to reach Mayra Rodriguez re (Redacted) 1/10/2024 TDF Review order to show cause 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 100% $0.00 1/10/2024 TDF Draft notice regarding order to show cause 0.30 $400.00 $120.00 0% $120.00 1/10/2024 DJS Follow up telephone call to Mayra 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 Rodriguez re (Redacted); Prepare email to Rodriguez re same 1/10/2024 DJS Exchange email with Mayra Rodriguez to 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 (Redacted) 1/10/2024 PNS Review order to show cause regarding 0.30 $400.00 $120.00 50% $60.00 motion for default (0.1); review draft response notice to same (0.1); discuss with Mr. Frankel (0.1) 1/11/2024 DJS Telephone call to and leave voicemail for 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 Mayra Rodriguez re (Redacted) 1/11/2024 DJS Follow up telephone call to Rodriguez re 0.10 $190.00 $19.00 0% $19.00 (Redacted) and prepare email to T. Frankel re same Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 20 of 22 1/11/2024 TDF Finalize notice regarding order to show 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 50% $0.00 cause 1/11/2024 DJS Finalize Notice re Order to Show Cause 0.30 $190.00 $57.00 100% $0.00 (.1); Electronically file same (.1); Complete mailing of hard copy to defendant via US Mail (.1) 1/11/2024 PNS Review Court’s order granting extension 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 100% $0.00 on motion for default 1/15/2024 TDF Communication with Rodriguez regarding 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 (Redacted) 1/16/2024 TDF Teleconference with Rodriguez regarding 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 (Redacted) 1/22/2024 TDF Draft motion for default judgment and 5.20 $400.00 $2,080.00 50% $1,040.00 supporting declaration 1/23/2024 DJS Review and revise damages estimates, 2.30 $190.00 $437.00 50% $218.50 draft motion for default and declaration in support of same (2.0); Confer with T. Frankel re same (.3) 1/23/2024 TDF Revise damages analysis for motion to 0.70 $400.00 $280.00 50% $140.00 default 1/24/2024 DJS Compile and redact pay statements for 3.20 $190.00 $608.00 50% $304.00 attachment to declaration in support of motion for default (.4); Prepare and insert tables detailing damages calculations into motion and declaration (1.5); Further revise motion and declaration (1.2); Prepare email to T. Frankel re same (.1) 1/25/2024 TDF Revise motion for default judgment 3.00 $400.00 $1,200.00 50% $600.00 Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 21 of 22 1/25/2024 PNS Review and revise motion for default, 0.80 $400.00 $320.00 50% $160.00 supporting declaration and proposed order (0.5); telephone conferences with Mr. Frankel and Mr. Streyle regarding same (0.3) 1/25/2024 TDF Communications to Rodriguez regarding 0.30 $400.00 $120.00 0% $120.00 (Redacted) 1/25/2024 DJS Review and revise final draft motion for 0.90 $190.00 $171.00 50% $85.50 default and supporting declaration (.7); Communicate with T. Frankel and P. Syverson re same (.2) 1/25/2024 DJS Prepare email to Mayra Rodriguez re 0.20 $190.00 $38.00 50% $19.00 (Redacted) (.1); Transmit same via Dropbox Sign for e-signature (.1)

1/25/2024 DJS Review executed declaration in support of 0.20 $190.00 $38.00 0% $38.00 motion for default back from Mayra Rodriguez (.1); Exchange email with T. Frankel re same (.1) 1/26/2024 DJS Review and finalize Motion for Default 1.50 $190.00 $285.00 50% $142.50 Judgment and related documents (.9); Communicate with T. Frankel re same; Electronically file same (.1); Prepare email to Judge attaching proposed order in Word (.1); Complete mailing of same to defendant (.4) 1/26/2024 TDF Finalize motion for default judgment 1.00 $400.00 $400.00 50% $200.00 1/26/2024 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 (Redacted) 1/26/2024 PNS Telephone conference with Mr. Frankel 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 regarding motion for default 3/11/2024 TDF Correspondence with Rodriguez regarding 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 (Redacted) Case 2:23-cv-01955-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/25/24 Page 22 of 22 5/6/2024 TDF Review order and judgment regarding 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 100% $20.00 wage claims 5/6/2024 TDF Correspondence to Rodriguez regarding 0.10 $400.00 $40.00 0% $40.00 (Redacted) 5/6/2024 PNS Review order granting default judgment 0.30 $400.00 $120.00 66.6% $40.00 (0.2); telephone conference with Mr. Frankel regarding collectability issues (0.1) 5/7/2024 TDF Research regarding collecting judgment 0.20 $400.00 $80.00 0% $80.00 5/13/2024 TDF Draft application for attorneys' fees and 2.70 $400.00 $1,080.00 100% $0.00 supporting declaration 5/14/2024 TDF Revise motion for attorneys' fees and 0.70 $400.00 $280.00 100% $0.00 costs 5/16/2024 DJS Review and revise draft application for 1.20 $190.00 $228.00 100% $0.00 attorneys' fees and expenses and supporting declaration (.8); Begin preparing exhibits to each (.4) 5/17/2024 DJS Continue preparing exhibits to application 2.80 $190.00 $532.00 100% $0.00 for attorneys' fees and expenses and supporting declaration (1.7); Review and revise fee application and declaration in support of same (1.1)

Submitted Totals: 68.80 hrs. $22,270.00 Color Key Reduced Totals: 34.90 hrs. $11,538.02 Tasks reduced based on reasonable time/labor/skill Clerical/administrative tasks Tasks related to preparing the Instant Motion