Nasiri v. T.A.G. Sec. Protective Servs.

• Decision Date: 16 September 2021
• Docket Number: 18-cv-01170-NC
• Parties: ELIAS NASIRI, Plaintiff, v. T.A.G. SECURITY PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

ELIAS NASIRI, Plaintiff,
v.
T.A.G. SECURITY PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 18-cv-01170-NC

United States District Court, N.D. California

September 16, 2021

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES RE: DKT. NO. 255

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Elias Nasiri moves for an award of his attorneys' fees in the amount of $244, 641.41, the total number of hours and fees expended in his case. See Dkt. No. 255 (“Mot.”); see also Dkt. No. 258 (“Opp'n”). Upon considering the parties' briefs, the outcome of both trials, and the Court's observation throughout the life of this case, the Court DENIES Nasiri's motion for attorneys' fees in full.

I. BACKGROUND

Between June 25, 2015, and December 22, 2016, Plaintiff Elias Nasiri worked as a security guard for Anthony Murga, doing business as T.A.G. Security Protective Services. Dkt. No. 250 “Findings of Fact” at 4. Defendant Anthony Murga formed T.A.G. Security Protective Services as a sole proprietorship in October 2013. Id. After Nasiri's employment with Murga terminated, T.A.G. Security Protective Services, Inc. became incorporated on January 11, 2017, listing Anthony Murga and Gabriela Lopez as officers. Id.

On February 22, 2018, Nasiri filed suit against T.A.G. Security Protective Services, Inc. and Personnel Staffing Group, LLC (“PSG”) to recover nine individual claims for lost wages and statutory penalties under California labor laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act. See Dkt. No. 1. He later amended the complaint naming Anthony Murga and Gabriela Lopez as additional defendants. See Dkt. No. 80.

This action came before the Court for a bifurcated trial. This Court held a jury trial from May 17, 2021, through May 18, 2021, to resolve Nasiri's individual labor claims against Murga (doing business as T.A.G. Security Protective Services), Lopez, and T.A.G. Security Protective Services, Inc. See Findings of Fact at 2. During the jury trial, Nasiri presented evidence to support the following claims: that Defendants (1) failed to pay overtime wages under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194, and 29 U.S.C. § 207; (2) failed to pay timely wages under Cal. Lab. Code § 204; (3) failed to provide meal and rest breaks and meal break premiums under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 226.7 and 512; (4) failed to pay all wages due upon termination under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201, 202, 203; (5) failed to reimburse necessary business expenses under Cal. Lab. Code § 2802; and (6) failed to pay split shift premiums under IWCA Order 4-2001(4)(C). Id.

A. Jury Trial

On May 19, 2021, the jury rendered a verdict against Defendant Murga, doing business as T.A.G. Security Protective Services, and in favor of Plaintiff Nasiri that: Murga owed Nasiri wages under the terms of his employment; Nasiri's daily wage rate at the time his employment ended with Murga was $96.00 per day; that Murga did not provide Nasiri with overtime wages; that Murga's failure to pay overtime was willful; that Murga's failure to pay the full amount of wages earned by Nasiri and due on the last day of employment was willful; and that Murga failed to pay Nasiri's wages for 30 calendar days following Nasiri's last day of employment. The jury awarded Nasiri damages for unpaid overtime in the amount of $35.50 to be paid by Murga. Dkt. No. 241 (“Verdict”) at 2-3.

The jury also rendered a verdict against Plaintiff Nasiri, and in favor of Defendant Murga, doing business as T.A.G. Security Protective Services, that: Murga did not fail to provide Nasiri with meal breaks; did not fail to provide Nasiri with rest breaks; did not fail to reimburse Nasiri's incurred necessary business expenses; and did not fail to compensate Nasiri when he worked a split shift. Id.

B. Bench Trial

On July 23, 2021, the Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law after bench trial. During the bench trial, Nasiri presented evidence in support of his PAGA claims seeking civil penalties for (1) Defendants' failure to provide meal breaks under Cal. Lab. Code § 512, (2) failure to provide meal break premiums under Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7, and (3) failure to pay timely wages under Cal. Lab. Code § 204 (regarding wages owed from meal break premiums). Findings of Fact at 3-4.

At the bench trial, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Nasiri's unfair competition law claim against all defendants and the Court found that Nasiri did not have standing to pursue civil penalties under PAGA because the jury denied Nasiri's individual claim for Murga's failure to provide meal breaks, in violation of Labor Code section 512. See Findings of Fact at 16. Because of the jury's finding, Murga did not owe Nasiri meal break premiums under Labor Code section 226.7, nor damages for failure to pay timely wages under Labor Code section 204. Id.

Accordingly, the Court found that Defendants prevailed on all PAGA claims at the bench trial and did not award Nasiri damages for those claims. Thus, Plaintiff Nasiri took nothing under Cal. Lab. Code § 226.7 because Murga did not fail to provide meal breaks to Nasiri. The Court denied Nasiri's Cal. Lab. Code § 2699 PAGA claims for failure to provide meal breaks under § 512, failure to provide meal break premiums under § 226.7, and failure to pay timely wages under §204. Thus, Nasiri took nothing under § 2699 because Nasiri lacked standing to bring an action for PAGA civil penalties for violations of § 512, § 226.7, and § 204. The Court awarded Nasiri liquidated damages and statutory damages to be paid by Murga.

C. Judgment

On July 23, 2021, this Court entered judgment, and awarded Nasiri a total of $2, 951.00 payable by Murga (inclusive of the jury's award of $35.50 for unpaid overtime, $35.50 in liquidated damages for unpaid overtime under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and $2, 880.00 in statutory damages for wait-time penalties under Cal. Lab. Code § 203). Dkt. No. 251. Judgment was also entered against Nasiri and in favor of Defendant PSG pursuant to...