Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140063
| S.D. Cal. | 2014Background
- Plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $1,671,197.27 related to ADA/Unruh Act litigation and related motions.
- Prior Antoninetti and Perkins actions involved attempted injunctive relief and damages; two related class actions were consolidated for settlement.
- Global settlement required Chipotle to pay reasonable fees and costs in all related cases; some prior fee awards had already been issued in 2011–2012.
- As of July 2011, California Chipotle locations reportedly lacked the wall issue; plaintiffs recovered $225,000 for damages to named plaintiffs.
- Court previously found class certification moot and rejected broad injunctive relief/declaratory relief; ongoing fee dispute concerns post-remand work.
- Court adopts lodestar method, adjusts hourly rates for inflation, excludes excessive/duplicative time, and makes a discretionary reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Plaintiffs seek $525/$620 rates; prior order allowed $400 for Vandeveld. | Rates should reflect prevailing rates with modest inflation, not higher unjustified amounts. | Hourly rates reduced to $420 for attorney work; $125 for paralegal tasks. |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Hours were reasonably expended across multiple related actions. | Many hours were excessive, duplicative, or unnecessary. | Disallowed extensive class-certification hours and other duplicative time; allowed remaining reasonable hours. |
| Fees on fees | Fees incurred defending the fee motion are recoverable. | Time spent on fee motion should be scrutinized and reduced. | Reduced time for fee-motion work; capped at reasonable attorney/paralegal hours at adjusted rates. |
| Overall success and multiplier (Kerr factors) | Contingent risk and catalytic impact justify enhanced fees. | Limited success for putative class claims; no broad nonmonetary relief; multiplier unsupported. | No upward multiplier; 50% reduction applied to lodestar due to limited class relief; total fee award reduced. |
| Discretionary reduction and final award | Lodestar reflects appropriate compensation for complex, protracted litigation. | Further reductions warranted given proportional relief and effort. | Total award: $317,927.50 in fees and $19,824.77 in costs; grand total $337,752.27. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method and adjustments for reasonableness)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (prevailing market rates; factors for reasonableness)
- Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496 (9th Cir. 1997) (forum community rates and prevailing market rates)
- Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1996) (lodestar calculation standards)
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (Kerr factors for adjusting lodestar)
- McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2009) (consideration of success in adjusting fees)
- McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of California, 51 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1994) (multipliers and degree of success analysis)
- Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (applies Kerr factors to reduce lodestar for limited success)