MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is plaintiff Felix O. Guillory's "Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs," filed October 2, 2017. Defendants
On July 11, 2016, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against defendants, in which he sought, pursuant to the California Homeowners Bill of Rights ("HBOR"), an injunction to stop defendants from foreclosing on his Oakland, California residence. At that time, the foreclosure was scheduled for July 13, 2016. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants were violating the HBOR by engaging in "dual tracking," i.e., proceeding with foreclosure proceedings while plaintiff's allegedly "complete application"
Concurrent with his complaint, plaintiff filed an "Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction," which application the Court granted by order filed July 12, 2018. In said order, the Court directed defendants to show cause, at a hearing scheduled for July 21, 2016, why a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from foreclosing upon the subject real property should not be entered, directed plaintiff to serve defendants with a copy of the Court's order, and, pending the July 21 hearing, temporarily restrained defendants from foreclosing upon the property.
On July 21, 2016, plaintiff appeared for the hearing; no defendant appeared. At the hearing, the Court determined plaintiff had not served defendants, but, rather, had served a law firm that represented Quality Loan Service Corporation ("Quality"), which was the trustee and a non-party to the instant action. Thereafter, the Clerk of Court was able to contact the trustee's counsel, who then appeared telephonically and informed the Court he had been advised by defendants that the foreclosure sale had been rescheduled for August 26, 2016. The Court then directed plaintiff to serve defendants by August 1, 2016, and continued the hearing to August 19, 2016.
On August 9, 2016, defendants appeared by filing an Administrative Motion to Change Time, in which they sought an order vacating the August 19 hearing. In support thereof, defendants stated they intended to review plaintiff's application for a loan modification, were "willing to voluntarily postpone the sale . . . until October 26, 2016," and agreed to the Court's entering an order "maintaining in place the TRO that prevent[ed] defendants from moving forward with foreclosure" while "plaintiff's loan modification application [was] under review." (
On September 8, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff's motion to substitute Tesfaye W. Tsadik's ("Tsadik") as his counsel of record.
On September 30, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Status Conference Statement, in which they advised the Court that defendants had requested, and plaintiff had agreed to submit, further documentation in support of the application for a loan modification. On October 6, 2016, the Court conducted a status conference, at which time the Court, "[p]ursuant to the stipulation of the parties," continued the date of the trustee's sale to January 18, 2017. (
On December 2, 2016, the Court conducted a Case Management Conference, at which the time the Court, "[p]ursuant to the stipulation of the parties," continued the date of the trustee's sale to March 1, 2017. (
In a stipulation filed April 7, 2017, the parties advised the Court they had agreed to a "trial payment plan (`TTP')" and "expected that completion of the TPP [would] lead to a permanent loan modification." (
On August 7, 2017, the parties entered into a loan modification agreement (
On September 19, 2017, the Court, upon stipulation of the parties, dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice and retained jurisdiction to consider whether plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees and costs. On October 2, 2017, plaintiff, as noted, filed the instant motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs.
As noted, plaintiff alleged in his complaint that defendants violated the HBOR. The HBOR includes the following "attorney's fees and costs" provision, under which plaintiff seeks an award:
The parties dispute whether plaintiff is a "prevailing borrower" for purposes of § 2924.12(i), and, if so, the amount of the award to which plaintiff is entitled.
As set forth above, the definition of a "prevailing borrower" under § 2924.12(i) includes a plaintiff who "obtained injunctive relief."
Defendants argue plaintiff is not a "prevailing borrower," as he did not obtain a preliminary injunction, but, rather, a temporary restraining order. District courts to have considered the issue, however, have found a temporary restraining order constitutes "injunctive relief" for purposes of § 2924.12(i), at least where the terms of a temporary restraining order remain in effect for a significant period of time without objection by the defendant.
Here, the restraining order, first issued July 12, 2016, remained in effect until March 1, 2017, i.e., for a period of seven and a half months, defendants having agreed to all but the first twenty days, which predated their initial appearance in the case. Under the circumstances, the Court finds plaintiff, having obtained an order precluding foreclosure for a period of seven and a half months, is a prevailing borrower for purposes of § 2924.12(i).
Under state law, "a court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved."
Here, plaintiff seeks an award that includes compensation for 157.3 hours spent by Tsadik. According to plaintiff, 19 of those 157.3 hours were for "researching and drafting [the fee] motion and supporting papers" (
As noted, plaintiff seeks a fee award that includes compensation for 117.7 hours Tsadik spent on tasks other than seeking fees. As to those 117.7 hours, 64.4 hours are attributable to work related to plaintiff's loan modification application, and 53.3 hours are attributable to tasks related to case management and other matters not related to loan modification.
As noted, plaintiff seeks an award that includes compensation for 64.4 hours related to plaintiffs' application for a loan modification.
At the outset, defendants contend such work, although performed by Tsadik, was "[c]lerical and secretarial," and, consequently, plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any such hours. (
Defendants next argue that none of the loan modification work performed after August 7, 2017, the date the parties entered into the loan modification agreement, is compensable, because, as defendants point out, plaintiff's HBOR claim became moot at that point. In particular, an HBOR claim becomes moot when the plaintiff has notice the defendant has ceased engaging in the conduct alleged to be in violation of the HBOR, and, as of that date, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for any further work incurred to establish liability.
Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to recover fees for any time spent on the loan modification after said date, which figure, as defendants point out, comprises 5.9 hours of the legal work claimed.
Defendants next argue the remaining 58.5 hours of work, even if not clerical or secretarial, was in large part "unnecessary" and, consequently, should not be awarded. (
The Court finds the remaining hours spent on the loan modification, specifically, 17.8 of legal work and 16.3 hours of paralegal work, were reasonably spent.
As noted, 53.5 of the claimed hours pertain to case management and other matters not related to loan modification. In particular, such work includes Tsadik's reviewing the case file prior to appearing as counsel of record, preparing for and appearing at case management conferences, researching law applicable to HBOR proceedings, reviewing defendants' answer, preparing and filing various court documents, communicating with the district court's Alternative Dispute Resolution Unit ("ADR Unit"), and preparing for and attending a court-sponsored mediation.
With respect to such claimed hours, defendants make two arguments.
First, defendants contend no fees should be awarded for time spent after August 7, 2017, which, as noted, is the date the parties entered into a loan modification agreement. The Court is not persuaded. Although, as set forth above, plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred to establish liability after August 7, the other time claimed after August 7 was spent performing work on matters not related to liability. Specifically, such time was spent preparing for and attending a court-sponsored mediation at which the parties attempted to settle the remaining claim for attorney's fees and costs, preparing a case management conference statement that included a proposal by plaintiff to resolve said remaining claim, and negotiating and preparing a stipulation of dismissal. Such work, to the extent reasonable, is compensable.
Next, defendants argue Tsadik's timesheet entries "reflect significant inefficiencies and bill padding" (
The Court finds the remaining hours spent on case management and other non-loan modification matters, specifically, 40.3 hours, were reasonably spent.
Plaintiff argues that a reasonable hourly compensation for Tsadik is $750. In support thereof, plaintiff relies on fee awards made in five cases litigated in this district and in which hourly rates ranging from $400 to $900 were approved.
As three of the cited cases involved claims under Title VII or other statutes prohibiting discrimination and a fourth was a class action challenging the designation of a group of workers as independent contractors (
Plaintiff argues his counsel is entitled to a rate significantly above that awarded in
Although Tsadik has had thirty-four years of experience, his "primary focus" has been on other types of litigation, specifically, "police misconduct and disability discrimination." (
As to work awarded at a paralegal rate, defendants have offered evidence that their counsel's firm charges from $130 to $150 per hour (
In light of the above, the lodestar for the time spent on work other than fee-related work is $25,522, comprising $23,240 (58.1 hours of legal work at an hourly rate of $400) and $2282 (16.3 hours of paralegal work at an hourly rate of $140).
As noted, plaintiff seeks an award that includes compensation for 39.6 hours spent preparing the moving papers and reply constituting the instant motion.
Defendants, while acknowledging that work performed to prepare a motion for fees is generally compensable, argue no such fees should be awarded here, on the asserted ground that the motion seeks an "unreasonable" amount of fees. (
As set forth above, not all of the hours sought for Tsadik's work "representing plaintiff in this litigation" (
Here, the "merits fees" sought in plaintiff's motion total $88,275, a figure corresponding to 117.7 hours of work at the claimed hourly rate of $750, while the "fees-on-fees" sought total $29,700, corresponding to 39.6 hours of work at the claimed hourly rate of $750. As set forth above, the Court has found plaintiff is entitled to merits fees in the amount of $25,522, which corresponds to 28.9% of the amount originally sought.
Accordingly, the Court finds a reasonable award for work preparing the instant motion is $8583.30, i.e., 28.9% of the amount originally sought for such work.
The total lodestar as calculated by the Court is $34,105.30 ($25,522 + $8583.30).
Plaintiff argues he is entitled to a lodestar enhancement of 2.0. The Court is not persuaded.
A lodestar may be adjusted where "the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services."
Defendants, citing
Accordingly, the Court declines to adjust the lodestar either upward or downward.
Plaintiff seeks costs in the total amount of $738.49.
The Court finds reasonable the following costs: the $400 filing fee; the $84.40 cost of service of process; and $26.86 in copying charges. Consequently, costs in the amount of $511.26 will be awarded.
The Court declines to award the remaining costs plaintiff seeks to recover, specifically, $202.29 in "FedEx mailing costs" and $24.94 in "USPS mailing costs" (
Accordingly, plaintiff will be awarded costs in the total amount of $511.26.
For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, plaintiff, as the prevailing borrower, is entitled to recover from defendants attorney's fees in the amount of $34,105.30, together with costs in the amount of $511.26, for a total of $34,616.56.