Although Reducing The Requested Hourly Rates For Sonoma County, The Rest Of The Lodestar Request And 1.5 Positive Multiplier Request Were Affirmed.
In Pelayo v. Utility Partners of America, LLC, Case No. A171211 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 7, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiff employees settled with employer, after contentious litigation on the eve of trial, under an agreement which allowed the trial judge to determine the employment statutory attorney’s fees to plaintiffs as prevailing parties. The venue of the case was Sonoma County. Plaintiffs moved to recover $2,401,622 in fees, based on Los Angeles hourly rates of $500-800 and inclusive of a 1.5 positive multiplier. The lower court reduced the hourly rates to $400-600 (not using L.A. rates), but it denied the defense’s other reductions and its objection to a multiplier by awarding $1,767,649.50 in fees.
The defense appeal did not alter the award. The lower court did reduce the hourly rates, with plaintiffs’ experts supporting the rate range eventually awarded by the trial judge for Sonoma County. When it came to the claims that the overall lodestar request was unreasonable, the defense complaints relatively were minor, and employer’s failure to mention how many hours its attorneys expended was a missing gap that the lower court could not ignore. (Pollock v. Kelso, 107 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1197 (2025) [opposing counsel work effort is probative on reasonableness of fees].) Finally, because the case was taken on a contingency basis and the complexity of the case was not just a “cookie cutter” matter, there was no abuse of discretion in granting the 1.5 positive enhancement. (The lower court did not have to give a detailed explanation to justify the multiplier, contrasted with other appellate opinions where a 16-times and 2.5 multiplier requests were found large enough to need some further reasoning for appellate scrutiny.)