Guerrero v. Cal. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 16 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. C 13-05671 WHA,C 13-05671 WHA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | VICTOR GUERRERO, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendants. |
In this Title VII challenge, plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and expenses. A prior order held that plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable amount of attorney's fees and costs based on his victory (Dkt. No. 313). The special master then issued a report and recommendation regarding the amount of the award. This order resolves the pending objections and adopts the special master's report and recommendation with one modification.
The history of this action has been summarized in prior orders and will not be repeated herein (Dkt. No. 277). In short, after a six-day bench trial, an order found that defendants had violated Title VII by discriminating against plaintiff, a Latino job applicant, based on his previous use of an invalid social security number. Plaintiff filed his motion for attorney's fees and expenses on October 30, 2015 (Dkt. 296). An order appointed Attorney Christina Chen as the special master under Rules 53 and 54.
The special master reviewed the parties' submissions and allowed supplemental submissions. The special master then filed a 73-page report regarding attorney's fees and expenses (Dkt. No. 352).
In short, plaintiff sought $1,621,776.15 in attorney's fees (including fees on fees), $22,469.61 in statutory costs, and $145,972.86 in non-statutory litigation expenses. Defendants contended the attorney's fees should be reduced to $279,265. The special master recommended an award of $1,186,307.70 in attorney's fees, $20,569.01 in statutory costs, $145,972.86 in non-statutory litigation expenses, and $50,717.12 of fees-on-fees. This recommendation reflected a 15 percent reduction to the lodestar, which the report concluded was appropriate given that plaintiff had achieved "good — but not excellent — overall results when viewed in relation to the 3,000+ hours claimed" (id. at 1-2, 62).
The special master submitted an invoice for her fees and recommended a 50-50 allocation of her fees between defendants and plaintiff. The report also recommended staying any award of reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses until after all appeals had been exhausted.
On May 12, 2016, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) moved to modify the special master's recommendation. The California State Personnel Board (SPB) and plaintiff lodged objections.
Defendants object to the recommended 15 percent reduction of the lodestar, arguing a further reduction is warranted. Defendants assert that a 35 percent reduction is warranted due to plaintiff's limited success.
First, defendants argue that a further reduction is warranted because plaintiff could have obtained the same individual relief in state court. In response, plaintiff argues that defendants failed to properly raise this argument in their original oppositions to plaintiff's motion forattorney's fees, thereby forfeiting this argument. This order agrees.1 Furthermore, CDCR proffers no authority for the conclusion that a fee reduction is appropriate because plaintiff could have obtained the same relief in state court. Moreover, the assertion is speculative; ascertaining whether plaintiff could have obtained the same relief in state court is beyond the purview of this motion. This objection is therefore OVERRULED.
Second, defendants argue a further reduction is warranted because the success achieved by plaintiff was limited in comparison to the scope of the litigation as a whole. The report acknowledged that reaching a fair and appropriate percentage for the lodestar reduction here was "tricky" (Dkt. 352 at 65). The report concluded that a 15 percent reduction was warranted because plaintiff obtained "make-whole equitable relief but not "broad systemic reforms." The report noted the absence of on-point case law for our situation. Nonetheless, the recommended reduction is appropriate given other holdings in our Circuit (id. at 61-64). This order finds the special master's recommendation reasonable. Defendants' objection is OVERRULED.
Third, SPB objects to the special master's conclusion that the unsuccessful due process claims were related to the successful Title VII claims. SPB's arguments, however, are unpersuasive. Prior orders on the Title VII claim made specific findings related to the process SPB provided to plaintiff. For example, an order concluded that SPB had failed to individually assess plaintiff's application or properly weigh all relevant factors (Dkt. 263). The Title VII claim covered the same factual territory as the due process claim; the two claims were therefore related. SPB's objection is OVERRULED.
SPB also objects to the fact that the report did not recommend the same apportionment for expenses and costs as it did for attorney's fees. As to attorney's fees, the report recommended an apportionment of 80 percent liability for CDCR and 20 percent liability for SPB. This order concludes that the same apportionment of expenses and costs is appropriate.This order holds that CDCR shall be 80 percent liable for expenses and costs and SPB shall be 20 percent liable.
Plaintiff did not lodge formal objections as to the recommendation regarding attorney's fees. Rather, plaintiff stated that the report of the special master reflects an "eminently fair" and reasonable overall resolution of the fees owed plaintiff. As discussed below, however, plaintiff objects to the 50-50 apportionment of special master fees.
The special master billed 190 hours total and requested compensation for 110 hours, equaling $22,000 at $200 per hour. Neither side objected to the entries on her invoice. This order finds that the special master's fees and expenses are reasonable. Pursuant to Rule 53(g), the special master's compensation is hereby FIXED.
The special master proposed the following allocation for special master expenses: (1) 50 percent for plaintiff, (2) 25 percent for CDCR and (3) 25 percent for SPB (Dkt. No. 353).
Plaintiff objects to the recommended apportionment of special master fees. The recommendation is reasonable, however. The special master did not agree with plaintiff on every issue; plaintiff's positions played at least a partial role in the need for a special master's intervention. Plaintiff's objection is therefore OVERRULED.
Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial