The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
For the Northern District of California United States District Court
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY‟S FEES AND COSTS
Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs‟ unopposed motion for attorney‟s fees and costs, ECF No. 36 ("Mot."), for an action brought under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 18 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); California Labor Code, sections 200, 226, 226.7, 1194; California 19 Business and Professions Code, section 17200; and common law breach of contract. Pursuant to 20 Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion appropriate for determination without oral 21 argument. Therefore, the August 25, 2011 hearing is VACATED. Having considered the 22 Plaintiffs‟ submissions and the relevant law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs‟ motion for the reasons 23 discussed below. 24
The factual background in this case is summarized in the Court‟s May 31, 2011 order 26 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs‟ motion for default judgment, and it is not repeated 27 here. See ECF No. 35. 28 2 construction employees, brought Federal and California claims against their employer, Neftali 3 Construction, for failure to pay wages and overtime compensation, and to provide lawfully 4 required rest/meal periods and wage statements. See ECF No. 1, Compl. 1. 5
For the present motion, it is sufficient to note that on March 30, 2010, Plaintiffs, sixteen
On May 17, 2011, after Defendant failed to appear in the litigation, the Court granted
Plaintiffs‟ motion for default judgment in part and awarded damages with regard to their claims for 7 unpaid wages under California‟s common law of contracts; unpaid overtime under California 8 Labor Code section 1194; willful failure to pay overtime under the FLSA; failure to provide meal 9 periods under California Labor Code section 226.7; willful failure to pay all wages due upon 10 termination under California Labor Code section 200(a); and failure to provide wage statements under California Labor Code section 226(a). ECF No. 35, at 4-14. The Court awarded Plaintiffs the following: $48,349.05 in unpaid wages; $5,647.50 in overtime under California law; $5,647.50 13 in liquidated damages under the FLSA; $2,510.00 in mealtime pay; $47,760 in unpaid wages upon 14 termination; and $7,050.00 in statutory damages for failure to provide wage statements, for a total 15 award of $116,964.05. Id. at 15.
On May 31, 2011, Plaintiffs filed this motion, seeking $7,825.00 in attorney‟s fees. Mot. 11.
Plaintiffs here are entitled to attorney‟s fees under the FLSA and California law. 29 U.S.C § 216(b) (2006); Cal. Lab. Code §§ 218.5, 1194 (West 2011). See also Newhouse v. Robert's Ilima 22 Tours, Inc.,708 F.2d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 1983) ("The FLSA grants prevailing plaintiffs a reasonable 23 attorney‟s fee."); Drumm v. Morningstar, Inc., 695 F.Supp.2d 1014, 1018 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (noting 24 that under California law, awarding attorney‟s fees is "mandatory" in unpaid wage claims). 25
26 whereby a court multiplies "the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended on the 27 litigation by a reasonable hourly rate." Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th 28 Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
Courts in the Ninth Circuit calculate an award of attorney‟s fees using the lodestar method, 2 are "in line with the "prevailing market rate of the relevant community.‟" Carson v. Billings Police 3 Dep't, 470 F.3d 889, 891 (9th Cir. 2006). Generally, "the relevant community is the forum in 4 which the district court sits." Camacho, 523 F.3d at 979 (citing Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 5 500 (9th Cir. 1997)). Typically, "affidavits of the plaintiffs‟ attorney and other attorneys regarding 6 prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases . . ...