Bronshteyn v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, B329890

Bronshteyn sued the California Department of Consumer Affairs in 2019 under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, disability discrimination, and failure to prevent discrimination; the case was tried to a jury in 2022 and resulted in a plaintiff verdict for $3,324,262.
The Department actively litigated (demurrer, summary adjudication, discovery disputes, post-trial motions and appeal) and refused early settlement; Bronshteyn had previously made a CCP § 998 offer of $600,000 plus fees, which the Department rejected.
Plaintiff’s counsel recorded >3,000 hours, sought lodestar fees based on high Los Angeles hourly rates (up to $1,200/hr), and requested a 2.0 multiplier; counsel submitted detailed timesheets, declarations, and an expert report supporting rates.
The Department challenged rates, hours, travel/time entries, and requested reductions; its fee expert proposed materially lower rates and disputed only about 5% of hours.
The trial court (having presided over the trial and seen counsel’s performance) accepted plaintiff’s expert and most hours, set high-end Los Angeles non-contingent hourly rates, applied a 1.75 multiplier for work through verdict and 1.25 for post-verdict work, and awarded $4,889,786.03 in fees.
On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the rate, hours, or multipliers and rejecting new arguments the Department raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate hourly rates	Requested high Los Angeles-market rates supported by expert and trial experience	Rates excessive; plaintiff expert relied on non-comparable top attorneys and defense expert proposed lower rates	Trial court did not abuse discretion; accepted plaintiff expert and high-end LA rates based on the court’s firsthand observation of counsel’s quality
Number of compensable hours	Timesheets detailed; voluntary 5% cut plus 50% cut on supplemental briefing addressed minor issues	Overbilled: vague entries, block billing, administrative time, excessive intra-office conferences, travel time	Trial court reasonably accepted plaintiff hours; Dept. forfeited broader challenges on appeal and only disputed minimal items already accounted for
Multiplier for contingency and risk	Contingency risk and lost opportunity justified enhancement (1.75 pre-verdict; 1.25 post-verdict)	Multiplier inappropriate because fees will be paid from public funds and post-judgment work posed less contingency risk	Court permissibly applied multipliers; considered risk and other factors, and post-judgment risk justified a reduced enhancement per Graham
New arguments on appeal (e.g., block billing, over‑litigation)	N/A	Raised broader challenges to hours and billing practices for first time on appeal	Appellate court refused to consider new theories not presented to trial court and affirmed fee award

Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 132 Cal.App.4th 359 (2005) (fee awards should assure counsel can staff meritorious statutory enforcement actions)
Laffitte v. Robert Half Internat. Inc., 1 Cal.5th 480 (2016) (standard of review for fee awards and burden on objector)
Rojas v. HSBC Card Services Inc., 93 Cal.App.5th 860 (2023) (appellate deference to trial court fee findings)
Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (2012) (gatekeeping standards for expert opinion evidence)
Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (1977) (taxpayer burden is a relevant factor in fee awards against government defendants)
Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) (presumptions supporting judgments and statement-of-decision principles)
Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (2004) (distinguishing enhancement for underlying litigation from enhancement for fee litigation)