2.0 Multiplier Enhancement Was Justified.
In Molina v. Lexmark International, Inc., Case Nos. B227746 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 19, 2013) (unpublished), an employer suffered a $7,777,620 adverse amended judgment in a class action involving employer’s vacation policy violations of Labor Code section 227.3. The lower court also awarded plaintiffs $145,341.93 in costs and $5,722,008 in attorney’s fees (based on a 2.0 positive multiplier).
Employer’s challenges to the costs/fees awards were not successful on appeal.
Costs. Because the lower court had ordered the parties to submit additional expert testimony in the partial new trial damages phase, the $65,030 in expert fees were proper. The costs for “high tech” equipment in the amount of $18,393.87 also was justified. (El Dorado Meat Co. v. Yosemite Meat & Locker Service, Inc., 150 Cal.App.4th 612, 617-618 (2007).) Unspecified travel costs, messenger service fees, parking/hotel/rental car expenses, and weekend air conditioning were properly allowable costs items. Finally in this area, $8,204.07 for computerized legal research was not a cost, but properly awarded as fees. (Plumbers & Steamfitters, Local 290 v. Duncan, 157 Cal.App.4th 1083, 1099 (2007).)
Fee Award. Although arguing the fee motion was untimely, it actually was not: because a partial new trial motion was granted, time began to run from the date of the amended judgment such that the fee motion was filed within 60 days after entry of the amended judgment. The 2.0 multiplier was warranted because the case had been going on for 5 years, the matter was complex/contentious, the $7 million-plus award was a good result, the thousands of hours expended on the case precluded plaintiffs’ attorneys from other employment, and the case was risk-laden. Also, the appellate court found plaintiffs’ counsel was reasonable in excluding time for an individual claim and that work on the B&P section 17200 claim was interrelated to work on the Labor Code claims. Finally, the $146,783.50 award for “fees on fees” work–129.15 hours for fee-related work–was proper given that the proceeding was contested.