Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90021

Background

Plaintiff Armando Rodriguez, prevailing in an ADA/CDPA/Unruh Act disability-access suit against Barrita Inc. et al., moved for $1,444,513.84 in attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs; defendants conceded entitlement but contested amount.
The parties disputed reasonable hourly rates, hours expended over a nearly five‑year case (started 2009, judgment 2014), and whether a multiplier or lodestar reduction was appropriate.
The court applied the federal lodestar approach (hours × reasonable rates) and considered fee adjustments under Kerr/Ketchum principles and Ninth Circuit guidance on partial success.
The court found many requested rates reasonable (e.g., McGuinness, Rein, Cabalo) but adjusted some paralegal rates and applied historical vs. current rate allocation for certain years.
The court reduced certain time entries for uncorroborated or excessive billing (unmatched conferences, unnecessary attendance, duplicative mediation/ADR time, excessive "fees-on-fees"), then applied a 20% reduction for limited overall success.
The court also reviewed $248,671.84 in non‑taxable litigation expenses (notably expert fees), made discrete reductions (including a 25% cut to one expert’s fees), and applied a 20% reduction for limited success to non‑taxable expenses; final award: $584,805.60 (fees) + $17,991.84 (taxed costs) + $155,356.45 (litigation expenses) = $758,153.89.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate hourly rates	Counsel should be paid current market rates ($550 for McGuinness, $645 for Rein, etc.)	Rates should reflect historical rates when work was done (lower rates for earlier years)	Court awarded requested current rates for Rein and Cabalo; for McGuinness applied 2013 rate ($495) for work through 2013 and $550 for 2014 hours to balance delay and avoid windfall.
Reasonableness of hours billed	Hours documented and necessary over protracted, complex litigation; offered a 5% voluntary reduction	Many entries excessive, duplicative, or uncorroborated (co‑conferencing, ADR, fee motion staffing, paralegal attendance)	Court made discrete reductions (e.g., cut 24.4 hours from Rein’s uncorroborated conferencing, reduced mediation/settlement prep and certain fee‑motion hours) before computing lodestar.
Lodestar adjustment / multiplier under state law	Seeks 1.5× multiplier (50% enhancement) under California law for contingent risk and exceptional skill	No multiplier; arguments counsel’s skill, risk, and novelty are subsumed in lodestar and market rates	Denied multiplier: court held contingent risk and skill were already reflected in lodestar and rates; no enhancement awarded.
Reduction for partial success	All reasonable fees and litigation expenses recoverable; significant public benefit achieved	Reduce fees/expenses because plaintiff achieved only partial success; some claims unrelated or unsuccessful	Applied Ninth Circuit Hensley/Thorne framework: claims were related but plaintiff achieved limited success; court imposed 20% across‑the‑board reduction to lodestar and 20% reduction to non‑taxable litigation expenses.

Key Cases Cited

Fischer v. SJB‑P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (lodestar two‑step fee analysis and guidance on multiplier discussion)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method and adjustments for partial success)
Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (state‑law multiplier standard and limits to avoid double counting)
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (permissible across‑the‑board fee haircut)
Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 802 F.2d 1131 (9th Cir. 1986) (two‑step relatedness/partial success test)
Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1989) (permitting current rates to compensate for delay in payment)
Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) (liberal application of relatedness test under Hensley)
Corder v. Gates, 947 F.2d 374 (9th Cir. 1991) (prefer reducing hours/rate over separate lodestar adjustment for limited success)