Sanity Prevails in California Attorney Fee Claim

Maybe They’re Not All Crazy in California

Posted on 11-Mar-08 by The Timekeeper

Have you heard the old joke about how California is like a bowl of granola (full of fruits, nuts and flakes)? Sometimes the stuff I read about the goings-on there related to wage and hour law and lawsuits makes me think the joke is more truth than fiction. Strange days, indeed.

But now it turns out even in California there may be persons of reasonableness and sanity. Consider the case of Harrington v. Payroll Entertainment Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, Michael J. Harrington, was an off-duty LAPD officer hired by the defendants, Payroll Entertainment Services, Inc. (PESI), to provide traffic and crowd control services for a movie premiere. Two weeks later, Mr. Harrison filed a class-action against PESI in which he alleged he was owed additional overtime and claimed as a class himself and other off duty and retired police officers who had been issued checks by PESI.

PESI responded by noting they had relied in good faith on a formula found in a memo issued by the LA Police Protective League without realizing the formula was incorrect. Further, they noted there were only 16 officers who had worked on the film, so the total amount at issue for all those in the purported “class” was only $714.08 (Mr. Harrington’s share was $44.63).

Not surprisingly, the trial court denied the motion for class certification. (Score one point for sanity.)

Before the case went to trial, through a mandatory settlement conference, PESI and Harrington came to an agreement. PESI agreed to pay $10,500 — $500 in penalties to the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and $10,000 to Mr. Harrington. Further, they agreed Mr. Harrington would be considered the “prevailing party” for the purposes of an attorney fee award, and agreed to let the trial judge determine the reasonableness of the fees claimed by Mr. Harrington’s attorneys.

Mr. Harrington and his lawyers, Harris & Ruble, filed a motion requesting $46,277 in attorneys’ fees and over $2,200 in court costs. Not surprisingly, PESI opposed the motion. The trial court sided with PESI, noting there was very little actual litigation involved in the case.

The court denied Mr. Harrington’s motion entirely, criticizing the quality of the work performed by Harris & Ruble, questioning the number of hours they claimed to have put in on the case and terming Mr. Harrington’s $10,000 award over a $44 dispute a “windfall.” The court suggested he simply share his bounty with his attorneys. (Score another point for sanity.)

Mr. Harrington and Harris & Ruble appealed, contending they were entitled to award of attorney’s fees as a matter of right. The appeals court agreed, saying “it is undisputed that fees are recoverable in this action,” and rejecting PESI’s contention that the $10,500 settlement included attorney’s fees.

Sanity appears to be on the ropes — but wait!

The appeals court noted that all Mr. Harrison and his legal advisors were entitled to was reasonable fees, and awarded a fee of only $500 for the original trial, without interest, with each party to pay the cost of their own attorneys for the appeal. I love this quote from the appeals court decision, “At the risk of understatement, there is no way on earth this case justified the hours purportedly billed by Harrington’s lawyers.”

The appeals court decision actually makes for pretty entertaining reading.

Three points for sanity — and sanity wins!

Hat-tip to the California Labor & Employment Law Blogof Carlton DiSante & Freudenberger LLP for bringing this case, and that wonderfully-written appeals court ruling to my attention!