| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion for Relief from Untimely Memorandum of Costs; Motion for Attorney and Expert Witness Fees
million bonus and a $500,000 severance payment and not a fundamental public policy].)
The court therefore finds none of the arbitration agreements are substantively unconscionable, and therefore Plaintiffs cannot establish unconscionability.
The case is STAYED pending arbitration.
Arbitration Status Review set for 5/20/2027 at 1:30 PM. The parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report 5 days prior.
Clerk to give notice.
6 Boyd vs. Motion to Strike Portions of Complaint Fernandez Off calendar at request of moving party. 30-2025- 01523882-CU- PA-CJC 7 Byer vs. City of Motion for Relief from Untimely Memorandum of La Palma Costs 30-2024- Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Untimely Memorandum of 01394359-CU- Costs is GRANTED. OE-CJC Notice of entry of judgment was served via email on 12/22/2025, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not file the memorandum of costs until 2/17/2026 (57 days later) due to a calendaring error.
The court rejects defendant’s contention the court is limited to the 30-day extension in California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(3). Plaintiff seeks relief on grounds of inadvertence or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); see Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 374, 381 [“In the absence of prejudice, the trial court has broad discretion in allowing relief on grounds of inadvertence from a failure to timely file a cost bill.”]; see also Hoover Community Hotel Development Corp. v. Thomson (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 485, 488 [limitation of time to file costs bill is not jurisdictional].)
Plaintiff has demonstrated the calendaring error was the result of counsel’s excusable neglect involving a new legal assistant who mistakenly calendared the memorandum of costs due at the same time as the motion for attorney fees.
Defendant has not demonstrated substantial prejudice. Defendant is granted leave to file a motion to strike or tax costs within 15 days.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Motion for Attorney and Expert Witness Fees
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Expert Witness Fees is GRANTED in the reduced sum of $987,265.25.
Undisputed expert fees of $11,862.50 and undisputed paralegal fees of $4,650.00 are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees under FEHA is based on 908 hours of attorney time at rates of $950/hour for attorney Petronelli and $500/hour for attorney Vanderpool, plus a 1.8x multiplier enhancement, for a total of $1,451,619.00.
A party seeking a fee award has the burden of establishing entitlement to an award, and of documenting the appropriate hours spent, and the hourly rates. (569 East County Blvd. LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 432; Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 486.) In challenging an attorney fees request, the burden falls upon the challenging party to point to specific items challenged, with arguments and citation to evidence. General claims that fees are excessive are insufficient. (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) A party cannot litigate tenaciously and then complain about the time incurred. (Peak-Las Positas Partners v. Bollag (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 101, 114.)
Defendant argues the hourly rates and hours billed are excessive and a 1.8x multiplier is unwarranted. Defendant contends an overall reduction of at least 20-30% is appropriate for duplication, overstaffing, and excessive and unreasonable hours. (Opp. at 11:4-12.)
Based on the average attorney fees for employment litigation in Orange County, the complexity of this matter, and the Court’s observations of the experience and skill of Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $850 for attorney Petronelli and $450 for attorney Vanderpool is reasonable.
Plaintiff’s counsel exercised skill in trying the case and achieved a good result for the client even though a reverse discrimination claim by a Caucasian employee is less common. The legal and factual issues in the case were not especially novel or complex for a FEHA discrimination lawsuit, but counsel took a risk in this atypical case, defendant vehemently denied all liability (even in the face of what the court considers the undeniable reality Sergeant Koh and Captain Amend presented as less-than-credible witnesses), and the policy behind FEHA’s fee-shifting statute is to attract lawyers to enforce civil rights laws with an understanding they will be paid a reasonable fee if they
prevail. (See Flannery v. Prentice (2001) 26 Cal.4th 572, 582-583.) Plaintiff found skilled lawyers in this difficult case.
Defendant identifies billing entries reflecting duplicative or excessive work by the two attorneys, such as both attorneys participating in the same depositions and reviewing the same deposition transcripts, 154 hours opposing summary judgment, and 40 hours related to the Pitchess motion. Defendant also identifies billing for clerical/administrative tasks such as preparing notices of intent to use deposition testimony, preparation of exhibit/witness lists, and witness scheduling communications, which could have been performed by a legal assistant or paralegal.
Overall, although it was reasonable for two attorneys to work on this matter, the court agrees certain work was duplicative, excessive, or clerical. Therefore, the court reduces the total hours by 10%.
The court also declines to award fees for the 6.5 hours billed for the instant motion. The motion was only necessary due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s error.
Plaintiff requests a 1.8x multiplier based on factors including the contingent risk, preclusion from other employment, public interest, and quality of representation. Defendant contends that at most, any multiplier should be limited to 1.25 and should not include post-trial work because there is a reduced contingent risk at this stage.
Based on the factors set out in Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, the Court finds a 1.65x multiplier appropriate to reflect the contingent risk of this case, preclusion of other employment, and the quality of counsel’s representation which resulted in a favorable verdict for Plaintiff. The court awards attorney fees as follows:
Attorney Petronelli: 619.9 hours x 90% = 557.9 x $850/hour = $474,215.00
Attorney Vanderpool: 289 hours x 90% - 6.5 hours for motion = 253.6 x $450/hour = $114,120.00
Total before multiplier: $588,335.00
Total after 1.65x multiplier: $970,752.75
Defendant is ORDERED to pay plaintiff attorney fees of $970,752.75, paralegal fees of $4,650, and expert fees of $11,862.50, for a total of $987,265.25.
Clerk to give notice.