48 Cal.App.5th 601
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Augustine Caldera, a correctional officer who stutters, sued CDCR and a supervisor for disability discrimination and harassment after coworkers mocked his stutter.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; this court reversed, holding stuttering qualifies as a disability under FEHA.
- A jury later awarded Caldera $500,000; a new-trial motion as to damages was granted below but that ruling was reversed on procedural grounds on appeal.
- Caldera sought $2,468,365 in FEHA attorney fees (lodestar $1,234,182.50 based on $750/hr rates for lead counsel and a 2.0 multiplier); the trial court awarded $810,067.50 after: (1) reducing hourly rates to $550/hr (San Bernardino locale), (2) trimming billed hours, and (3) declining to apply a 2.0 multiplier.
- On appeal Caldera argued the court should have used counsel’s home-market (Los Angeles) rates because competent local contingency counsel was unavailable, and should have applied a Ketchum multiplier rather than folding Ketchum factors into a reduced hourly rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper hourly rate: use counsel’s home-market or local (San Bernardino) rates? | Use counsel’s Los Angeles/home-market rates because qualified local counsel in the Inland Empire was unavailable. | Local rates govern; requested rates are too high for this locale. | Reversed: trial court abused discretion by using local rates; remand to set lodestar using counsel’s home-market rate. |
| Use of multiplier vs. adjusting hourly rate for Ketchum factors? | Apply a multiplier (2.0) to reward contingency risk, novelty, public interest, and results. | No multiplier; factors already reflected in lowered hourly rate. | Court found many Ketchum factors applied; remand directed to use multiplier approach (or at least make clearer adjustments) rather than subsuming factors into an unexplained hourly-rate cut. |
| Reduction in lodestar hours (from ~1651 to ~1413) | Contends some reductions were improper. | Court discretion to pare hours for inefficiency/overbilling. | Affirmed: trial court’s discrete reductions were within its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (establishes lodestar method and Ketchum factors for fee multipliers)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino, 188 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (trial court must consider out-of-town counsel’s home-market rates when local counsel is unavailable)
- Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 132 Cal.App.4th 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (FEHA fee awards should accommodate higher out-of-town rates where local counsel cannot be retained)
- Bernardi v. County of Monterey, 167 Cal.App.4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (multipliers are common in contingent-fee cases)
- PCLM Group Ins. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) (trial court has discretion to reduce lodestar hours and appellate review is deferential)