Taylor Farms California, Inc. v. Coopers Cold Food, Inc.
Opinion
O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 TAYLOR FARMS CALIFORNIA, INC., a ) Case No. 19-cv-8924 DDP (GJSx) 10 California corporation, ) 11 ) ORDER RE: FINAL JUDGMENT OF Plaintiff, 12 ) ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS vs. ) 13 ) COOPER’S COLD FOODS, INC., a [Dkt. 95] 14 California corporation; and, ADAM ) ) COOPER, an individual, 15 )
16 Defendants. ) ) 17 MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., a ) 18 California corporation; and, FARMERS ) LINK, INC., a California corporation, ) 19 ) Intervening Plaintiffs, 20 )
) 21 vs. ) 22 COOPER COLD FOODS, INC., a ) California corporation; and, ADAM ) 23 COOPER, an individual, ) 24 ) Defendants. ) 25
26 Presently before the court is Intervening Plaintiff’s Application for Judgment of 27 1 I. BACKGROUND The court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case, which have 2 been set forth more fully in the court’s summary judgment Order. (Dkt. 58, 64.) In brief, 3 Intervening Plaintiffs Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. (“Monterey Mushrooms”) and Farmers 4 Link, Inc. (“Farmers”) filed a Complaint-in-Intervention (“Complaint”) against 5 Defendants Cooper’s Cold Foods, Inc. (“Cooper’s Cold Foods”) and Adam Cooper 6 (“Cooper”), seeking to “recover damages for breach of contract and to enforce their rights 7 under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (“PACA”).” (See generally 8 Complaint.) Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleged claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) 9 declaratory relief, (3) enforcement of payment from PACA trust assets, (4) failure to 10 11 maintain PACA trust assets and creation of common fund, (5) failure to pay promptly, (6) 12 breach of fiduciary duty, and (7) unlawful receipt of PACA trust assets. (Id.) 13 Monterey Mushrooms and Cooper filed cross motions for summary judgment. 14 (See Dkt. 58-62, 64-67.) Cooper’s motion was granted in part, and denied in part. (Dkt. 92, 15 Order.) The court granted Monterey Mushrooms’ motion on claims one through six, and 16 concluded that Monterey Mushrooms “is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- 17 judgment interest.” (Id.) 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 Once a party has established that it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, “[i]t 20 remains for the district court to determine what fee is reasonable.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 21 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The “starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable 22 fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a 23 reasonable hourly rate.” Id. This is called the “lodestar” method. The fee applicant must 24 submit evidence of the hours worked and the rates claimed. Although the fee applicant 25 bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documentation of the 26 appropriate hours expended and hourly rates, a prevailing party “is not required to 27 record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended.” Id. at 437 n. 12. The prevailing party seeking attorneys’ fees need only “identify the general subject matter of 1 his time expenditures” to meet its burden of establishing its fee request is reasonable. Id. 2 This limited obligation reflects the broader policy that a “request for attorney’s fees 3 should not result in a second major litigation.” Id. at 437. 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 Having determined that Monterey Mushrooms is “is entitled to attorneys’ fees 6 and costs, and pre-judgment interest,” the only issue before the court is whether the 7 requested fees are reasonable. 8 Monterey Mushrooms currently seeks $81,406.14 in attorneys’ fees. This 9 10 represents 266.5 total work hours. The individuals working on this case are attorneys 11 Steven Nurenberg (at $335/hour for 214.70 hours) and Seven De Falco (at $315/hour for 1 12 hour), and paralegal Luanne Rogers (at $195/hour for 73.40 hours). (Dkt. 95-2, 13 Nurenberg Declaration (“Decl.”) ¶ 9.) The court reviewed the detailed invoices submitted 14 by counsel and Nurenberg’s declaration describing the nature of the work performed 15 and the experience of the attorneys and paralegal involved. The court finds, and 16 Defendants do not dispute that, the number of hours billed to Monterey Mushrooms is 17 reasonable. Defendants, however, assert several objections which are discussed below. 18 First, Defendants object to entries that reflect work performed exclusively for 19 Farmers and to entries that refer to “client” but do not specifically identify which client. 20 (Opp. at 3-6.) The court finds that counsel’s invoices adequately reflect they either 21 performed tasks for Monterey Mushrooms or for the benefit of both Monterey 22 Mushrooms and Farmers as co-intervening plaintiffs. Counsel would have performed 23 these tasks on behalf of Monterey Mushrooms even in Farmers’ absence from this action. 24 Moreover, it is no mystery that when counsel refers to “client” or “clients,” they likely 25 refer to Monterey Mushrooms and/or both intervening plaintiffs. The court also finds 26 that counsel sufficiently described the general subject matter of the time expenditure 27 regardless of whether the “client” was specifically identified. The court finds these billing entries reasonable with the exception of one communication exclusively sent to 1 Farmers. The court will therefore reduce the total amount of attorneys’ fees by 0.4, but 2 otherwise overrules Defendants’ objection. 3 Second, Defendants argue that Roger’s hourly rate of $195 is unreasonable. (Opp. 4 at 6-7.) Nurenberg attests to Roger’s experience and skill as a paralegal in his 5 declaration. (See Nurenberg Decl. ¶ 6.) Rogers has more than thirty years of experience 6 in the legal field as a Certified Paralegal with a specialty designation in litigation and has 7 worked at Meuers Law Firm, P.L. for nearly ten years. (Id.) Moreover, several other 8 courts within the district have held rates of $150 to $276.25 to be reasonable for the work 9 10 of paralegals depending on their degree of experience and skill. See, e.g., Whitaker v. 370 11 N. Canon Drive, LP, 2020 WL 6130139, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2020) (finding $210 for 12 paralegal services reasonable); Energizer Brands, LLC v. Lumintop Tech. Co., 2020 WL 13 1279456, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2020) (holding rate of $259.25 and $276.25 for paralegal 14 with over 28 years of experience in litigation reasonable). The court therefore concludes 15 that Rogers’ hourly rate is reasonable. 16 Finally, Defendants argue that purely clerical or secretarial tasks should be 17 excluded from the lodestar calculation. (Opp. at 7.) “[C]ourts typically exclude time 18 spent on clerical or ministerial tasks because such tasks are properly considered part of 19 an attorney’s overhead and are reflected in his or her hourly rate.” Weeks v. Kellogg Co., 20 2013 WL 6531177, at *32 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2013). Here, the court finds that time spent 21 researching federal dockets for case filings, preparing memorandum and 22 communications to process servers, and working with the courts with respect to bar 23 admission and appearances are substantive, billable tasks. See, e.g., Sandler Partners, LLC 24 v. Masergy Commc’ns, Inc., 2020 WL 7347869, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020) (“[T]ime 25 entries that involve researching and drafting correspondence and legal documents or a 26 paralegal cite checking motions . . . are, in fact, billable tasks.”). The parties do not 27 dispute that the electronic filing of documents is clerical and should therefore be excluded from the total fee award. Thus, the court excludes 0.7 hours devoted to such 1 tasks. 2 IV.CONCLUSION 3 For the reasons stated above, Monterey Mushrooms’ Application for Judgment of 4 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED, in part.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Taylor Farms California, Inc. v. Coopers Cold Food, Inc. (Taylor Farms California, Inc. v. Coopers Cold Food, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.