# Board of Trustees of the California Ironworkers Field Pension Trust v. Streamline Integration

> District Court, C.D. California · May 12, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9983218

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** May 12, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9983218

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding typical 7 market rate for experienced ERISA attorney ranged from 8 $375 to $400 per hour

## Opinion text

10!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12 | BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CV 21—08301-RSWL-KESx
| GREIFORNAFROWTIONERS | oposR se: ORION FOR
AL ATTORNEYS’ FEES [26]
14
15 Plaintiff,
16 Vv.
17 | STREAMLINE INTEGRATION,
18 Defendant.
19 |--—
20 In accordance with the Court’s Order Granting
21 | Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
22 | Attorneys’ Fees. In the prior Order, the Court found
23 | that Plaintiffs were entitled to Attorneys’ Fees. See
241 Dkt. No. 24 at 12. The Motion is unopposed. The Court
25 | GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.
26 “The most useful starting point for determining the
27 | amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours
28

1 reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a

2 reasonable hourly rate,” which is known as the lodestar

3 calculation. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433
4 (1983). A district court may consider any of the
5 following twelve factors in adjusting an award: (1) the
6 time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty
7 of the questions involved; (3) the skill requisite to
8 perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion
9 of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of
10 the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is
11 fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the
12 client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and
13 the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation,
14 and ability of the attorneys; (10) the ‘undesirability’
15 of the case; (11) the nature and length of the
16 professional relationship with the client; and
17 (12) awards in similar cases. Kerr v. Screen Extras
18 Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). Here,
19 none of these factors necessitate an adjustment of the
20 lodestar calculation.
21 Plaintiffs request an award of $43,761.13 in
22 attorneys’ fees, which is the total number of hours
23 worked by attorneys on the matter multiplied by the
24 billing rates for each respective attorney. Pls.’ Mem.
25 of P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. for Atty’s Fees, ECF No. 26-
26 1.
27 The Court finds that the billing rates, which range
28 from $290 to $240 per hour, are reasonable. Id.
1 at 4:16; see Trustees of the S. California IBEW-NECA

2 Pension Plan v. Pro Tech Eng’g Corp.,

3 No. SACV150637DOCEX, 2016 WL 3453014, at *5–6 (C.D. Cal.
4 June 20, 2016) (finding hourly rates ranging from $240
5 to $270 per hour reasonable); Welch v. Metro. Life Ins.
6 Co., 480 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding typical
7 market rate for experienced ERISA attorney ranged from
8 $375 to $400 per hour).
9 Plaintiffs request compensation for 140.1 hours of
10 work by the attorneys that worked on this case. Upon
11 review of the attorneys’ time entries, the Court finds
12 the hours worked were not excessive nor unrelated to the
13 resolution of the instant Action. Accordingly, the
14 Court awards $43,761.13 in attorneys’ fees.
15
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18 DATED: May 12, 2021 _______/S_/_ R_O_N_A_L_D_ S_._W_._ L_E_W________
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW
19
Senior U.S. District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9983218. Public record. Not legal advice.