Garcia Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
257 F. Supp. 3d 100
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiff Doris Nohemi Garcia Hernandez, a former Chipotle employee, prevailed at a four-day jury trial on pregnancy discrimination claims; judgment (after statutory cap) totaled $390,000.
- Plaintiff seeks $838,122.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs for 2,073 billed hours; parties agree plaintiff is entitled to fees but dispute amount and some rates.
- Majority of work was performed pro bono by Arnold & Porter LLP and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee after Debevoise withdrew; plaintiff excluded Debevoise’s time from the petition.
- Plaintiff requested most hours at the 2016–17 USAO Laffey Matrix rates, but sought LSI/Salazar (higher) Laffey rates for 270 senior-attorney trial hours.
- Defendant challenged hours as excessive, vague, clerical/unsuccessful, and block-billed, and disputed application of the higher LSI Laffey rates for trial prep and trial.
- Court largely upheld plaintiff’s petition, applying LSI Laffey rates to the 270 trial hours, making limited reductions, and awarding $825,621.77 (after $12,500.23 in reductions) in fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of total hours/staffing | Hours and staffing were reasonable given case complexity, Spanish-only witnesses, corporate discovery, witness turnover, and change of counsel mid-litigation | Overstaffed (10 attorneys/3 paralegals), excessive hours on summary judgment, depositions, and trial days; seeks large reductions | Court: hours and staffing largely reasonable; defendant failed to show overstaffing/unreasonable duplication; limited reductions for a few specific items |
| Block billing and vague entries | Time entries are sufficiently detailed to assess reasonableness; limited block billing | Many entries are block-billed or vague, preventing meaningful review; seeks significant reductions | Court: most entries were not impermissible block billing or vague; infrequent block billing did not warrant overall reduction |
| Billing for clerical work and unsuccessful filings | Time spent on those filings related to successful claims and thus compensable; excluded many entries already | Fees should exclude clerical tasks and time on unsuccessful/frivolous filings | Court: most challenged entries were substantive work (filing edits etc.) and compensable; trimmed small amounts for identified purely clerical or clearly unrelated entries |
| Appropriate hourly rate for trial/prep hours (LSI/Salazar vs. USAO Laffey) | 270 hours of senior counsel should be billed at LSI/Salazar Laffey rates supported by market surveys, declarations, and economist affidavit | Use USAO Laffey rates; defendant offered no market evidence to rebut plaintiff | Court: evidence mirrored that relied upon in Salazar; lacking rebuttal, court applied LSI/Salazar Laffey rates to the 270 hours |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Potter, 717 F.3d 1030 (D.C. Cir.) (lodestar presumption; reasonable fee definition)
- Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir.) (endorsing LSI Laffey matrix for complex federal litigation when supported by evidence)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (Sup. Ct.) (prevailing party may recover fees for hours reasonably spent even if some claims/filings were unsuccessful)
- Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir.) (documentation standard for fee petitions; block-billing concerns)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C.) (origination of the Laffey Matrix for attorney-fee rates)