Van v. Language Line, LLC, Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
| Decision Date | 23 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK |
| Parties | NATHALIE THUY VAN, Plaintiff, v. LANGUAGE LINE, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Before the Court are four post-trial motions: (1) a motion to intervene filed by Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van's ("Plaintiff") former counsel, Robinson & Wood, Inc. ("R&W"), ECF No. 419; (2) R&W's motion for attorney's fees and costs, ECF No. 420; (3) Defendant Language Line, LLC's ("Defendant") motion for costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, ECF No. 421; and (4) Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs, ECF No. 422. Also before the Court is a stipulation regarding attorney's fees filed by R&W and Defendant. ECF No. 440. Having considered the parties' briefing, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby DENIES R&W's motions to intervene and for attorney's fees and costs, GRANTS Defendant's motion for costs, GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs, and DENIES R&W's and Defendant's stipulation.
Plaintiff filed the instant action pro se on August 21, 2014 against Language Line Services, Inc. and Language Line Solutions. ECF No. 1. On March 24, 2015, R&W substituted as Plaintiff's counsel of record. ECF No. 50. R&W represented Plaintiff pursuant to an Attorney-Client Contingent Fee Agreement, under which Plaintiff granted R&W thirty percent (30%) of any recovery that R&W obtains for Plaintiff. ECF No. 419, Ex. A ("Fee Agreement"). Plaintiff also agreed that, in the event of R&W's discharge or withdrawal, Plaintiff would pay R&W a reasonable fee for the services provided, which would be calculated according to the number of hours worked by the applicable hourly rate for each lawyer. Id. § 4. Plaintiff also Id. § 12.
On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff (represented by R&W) filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against Language Line Services, Inc. and Language Line, LLC (collectively, "Defendants"). ECF No. 61. The FAC contained eight causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1); (2) unpaid overtime in violation of California Labor Code §§ 510, 1194; (3) unpaid meal period wages in violation of California Labor Code §§ 218.5, 218.6, 226.7, 512; (4) failure to provide itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code § 226; (5) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5(b) and common law; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"); (7) breach of contract; and (8) unlawful business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
Three months after filing the FAC, on July 24, 2015, R&W withdrew as counsel. ECF No. 69. Plaintiff again proceeded pro se. See id.
One year later, on June 6, 2016, the Court ruled on the parties' cross motions for summaryjudgment. ECF No. 244. The Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff's claims for retaliation, IIED, and breach of contract. The Court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff's remaining claims, which limited Plaintiff's claims to violations arising in the statute of limitations periods. Lastly, the Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiff on liability, but not damages, for Plaintiff's claim for unpaid meal periods and rest breaks. Thus, five claims survived summary judgment: (1) unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA, (2) unpaid overtime in violation of the California Labor Code, (3) unpaid meal periods and rest breaks, (4) provision of inaccurate itemized wage statements, and (5) violation of the UCL.
On June 30, 2016, the Court dismissed Defendant Language Line Services, Inc. pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. ECF No. 294.
A jury trial was held from July 26, 2016 to July 28, 2016. ECF Nos. 375, 383, 401. On July 29, 2016, the jury returned a verdict. ECF No. 403. The jury concluded that Plaintiff was not properly compensated for 19.5 hours of overtime worked in excess of 40 hours per week from August 21, 2010 to August 20, 2012. However, the jury found that Plaintiff did not work any uncompensated overtime hours in excess of 40 hours per week from August 21, 2012 to December 9, 2015. In addition, the jury found that Plaintiff worked an additional 0.5 hours of uncompensated overtime in excess of eight hours per day. In total, the jury awarded Plaintiff $493.63 in overtime wages. Accordingly, Plaintiff prevailed on her overtime claim under California Labor Code §§ 510 and 1194.
However, the jury found that Defendant did not willfully violate the FLSA. ECF No. 403. Thus, Plaintiff's FLSA claim is governed by a two-year statute of limitations, and Plaintiff could recover only for violations after August 21, 2012. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) (). The jury found that Plaintiff worked no uncompensated overtime after August 20, 2012, and thus found no violations of the FLSA. ECF No. 403 ().
In addition, Plaintiff prevailed on her claim for unpaid meal periods and rest breaks under California Labor Code §§ 226.7 and 512, on which the jury awarded Plaintiff $2,230.95. Because Plaintiff prevailed on her California Labor Code overtime and meal period and rest break claims, Plaintiff also prevailed on her claims under the UCL, which were derivative of Plaintiff's California Labor Code claims. Lastly, the jury found in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's final claim, for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code § 226.
There are four motions and one stipulation pending. First, on August 11, 2016, R&W filed a motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking attorney's fees and costs. ECF No. 419 ("R&W Intervene Mot."). Second, R&W filed a corresponding motion for attorney's fees and costs. ECF No. 420 ("R&W Fees Mot."). On August 25, 2016, Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to R&W's motion to intervene, ECF No. 431, and opposed R&W's motion for attorney's fees, ECF No. 432. That same day, Plaintiff opposed both of R&W's motions. ECF No. 434 ("Pl. Fees Opp."). R&W replied on September 1, 2016. ECF No. 446 ("R&W Intervene Reply"); ECF No. 447 ("R&W Fees Reply").
Third, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs on August 11, 2016, based on the attorney's fees and costs claimed by R&W, as well as the costs incurred by Plaintiff. ECF No. 422 ("Pl. Fees Mot."). Plaintiff contends that the Court should consider Plaintiff's motion, rather than R&W's motion, because R&W's motion does not include over $20,000 in costs that Plaintiff incurred while representing herself pro se. Defendant opposed Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs on August 25, 2016. ECF No. 433 ("Def. Fees Opp."). Plaintiff replied on August 31, 2016. ECF No. 444 ("Pl. Fees Reply").
Fourth, Defendant filed a bill of costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 on August 11, 2016. ECF No. 421 ("Def. Costs Mot."). Plaintiff objected to the bill of costs on August 15, 2016. ECF No. 426 ("Pl. Costs Opp."). Plaintiff's objections raised legal questionsabout Defendant's entitlement to costs, including whether Defendant properly served the Rule 68 offer of judgment by leaving it at Plaintiff's door. In light of Plaintiff's objections, the Court determined that the Court, rather than the Clerk, should decide Defendant's bill of costs. ECF No. 429. The Court authorized Defendant to file a reply, which Defendant did on August 22, 2016. ECF No. 430 ("Def. Costs Reply").
In addition, on September 8, 2016, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on Defendant's service of the Rule 68 offer of judgment. Specifically, the Court asked the parties to "identify all instances in which Plaintiff was served with documents by Defendant leaving the documents at Plaintiff's door." ECF No. 449. The parties responded on September 12, 2016. ECF No. 450 ("Pl. Service Brief"); ECF No. 451 ("Def. Service Brief").
Lastly, on August 30, 2016, Defendant and R&W submitted a proposed stipulation for the award of attorney's fees and costs to R&W. ECF No. 440. Pursuant to the stipulation, Defendant agreed to pay R&W $19,500 as "full satisfaction of [R&W's] claim for attorney's fees and costs" and R&W agreed "not [to] seek additional amounts from either [Defendant] and/or [Plaintiff], its former client." In addition, Defendant and R&W stipulated that "[Plaintiff] shall not be obligated to pay any attorneys' fees or costs incurred by [R&W] on her behalf, and accordingly [Defendant] shall not be obligated to pay [Plaintiff] any amount of attorney's fees and costs for work done by [R&W] in representing her, even if arguendo the law would otherwise allow her to recover such additional fees and costs." Id. Although R&W agreed to the proposed stipulation, R&W did not withdraw either its motion to intervene or its motion for attorney's fees and costs. On August 31, 2016, Plaintiff opposed the stipulation filed by R&W and Defendant. ECF No. 441.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) requires that a court permit anyone to intervene who "claims an interest relating...
To continue reading
Request your trial