Costs Award Affirmed, But Fee Award Remanded For A Further Re-Do.
In Hernandez v. Starbucks Coffee Co., Case Nos. H042848/H043393 (6th Dist. June 20, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff successfully sued Starbucks for Unruh Act accessibility barrier discrimination at a San Jose store. Plaintiff was awarded statutory damages of $4,000 (although not winning all accessibility claims) and $158,880.50 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested $170,880.50) and a majority of its $8,260.39 in costs. Starbucks appealed.
It raised a litany of challenges to both awards. A few resonated so as to require a remand.
The appellate court found that costs associated with an unsuccessful summary judgment motion and oversized copies/scans of exhibits were properly found to be necessary to the litigation or useful to the trier of fact.
With respect to fees, here is how things panned out:
- Given that the appellate court modified a permanent injunction, the matter had to be remanded to see if the “limited success” factor made a difference in the amount of the fee award;
- The fee award had to be reduced by $12,210 for work attributable to another settling defendant (with Starbucks doing a good job of identifying the work precisely, so that the appellate court itself could order this reduction);
- No apportionment was required because overlapping facts and legal theories were involved against Starbucks and the other defendant sued on a joint and several basis;
- No reduction was necessary for block billing because the legal descriptions were sufficient to identify the nature of the work;
- No reduction was required for interoffice conferencing, rejecting the notion that anything over 4% of total billings is per se unreasonable; and
- Reductions on remand did need to be made for purely clerical tasks.