Sergio Lopez v. Babas Motorsports LLC, et al.

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Sergio Lopez, No. CV-24-03090-PHX-JJT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Babas Motorsports LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 At issue is Plaintiff Sergio Lopez’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs against Defendants. (Doc. 45, Motion.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion.

18 I. BACKGROUND 19 In this case, Plaintiff alleged Defendants Babas Motorsports LLC, Amel Mohmmed Ataalaha and Baneta Nahrain Ataalaha (husband and wife) failed to pay Plaintiff wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) (“FLSA”), the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-363 (“AMWA”), and the Arizona Wage Act, A.R.S.

23 § 23-350. Defendants ceased participation in this case after their counsel withdrew (Doc. 35). The Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff, awarding him $13,800 in damages. (Docs. 43, 44.) Plaintiff now requests his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and Defendants have not filed any responsive memoranda in opposition. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(i), the Court may deem Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs as consent to granting Plaintiff’s Motion. Still, the Court independently reviews Plaintiff’s Motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2)— the default judgment rule—and for compliance with Local Rule 54.2(c). (See Doc. 43.)

3 II. ANALYSIS 4 Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2, a party seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and related non-taxable expenses must show that the party is eligible for and entitled to an award and that the requested award is reasonable. LRCiv 54.2(c).

7 A. Eligibility and Entitlement 8 A party’s eligibility and entitlement to an attorneys’ fees award depends on the applicable statutory, contractual, or legal authority “upon which the movant seeks an award.” LRCiv 54.2(c)(1)–(2). Here, Plaintiff is eligible for and entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees under the FLSA, which provides that “[t]he Court in such action shall, in additional to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorneys’ fee to be paid by the defendant, and cost of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

14 Plaintiff is also eligible for and entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees under the AMWA, which provides that “[a] prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.” A.R.S. § 23-364(G). If a plaintiff receives at least some relief on the merits of his claim, he can be said to prevail. Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760 (1987).

18 Therefore, Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is eligible for and entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees.

20 B. Reasonableness 21 To determine whether attorneys’ fees are reasonable, courts apply the lodestar method. Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990). The lodestar approach consists of two steps. Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 24 942, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2007). “First, the court establishes a lodestar by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate,” excluding from the requested amount “any hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Then, in rare cases, “the district court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a multiplier based on facts not subsumed in the initial lodestar calculation.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Local Rule 54.2(c) lists 13 factors the Court should consider when determining reasonableness including time and labor, fees, and experience of counsel.

4 Plaintiff seeks $22,319 in fees already incurred, $617.25 in costs, and an additional $10,034.06 in prospective collection costs. In his Motion, Plaintiff has duly provided the Court with counsel’s detailed billing records, representation agreement, and the other documentation necessary to support the request for fees and costs. (Docs. 45-1, 45-8, 45- 9.)

9 Plaintiff has demonstrated that the requested attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel, Clifford P. Bendau, II, and Christopher J. Bendau, are seeking attorneys’ fees at the hourly rates of $495 and $445, respectively. Such a rate does not exceed the market rate and is not unreasonable.1 See LRCiv 54.2(c)(3); Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). Likewise, the number of hours expended by counsel—35.2 hours incurred by Clifford P. Bendau, and 11 hours incurred by Chistopher J. Bendau—is reasonable considering the time expended to prepare the complaint, engage in settlement discussions, seek default judgment, and prepare and file the present motion, as well as to effectuate service upon Defendant. There is no redundancy or lack of necessity in the work reported.

19 Turning to the other factors outlined in Local Rule 54.2(c), Plaintiff states that there were no novel or difficult legal issues present, Plaintiff’s counsel were not significantly precluded from other work because of this representation, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is warranted by their experience, reputation, and ability. Therefore, there is no basis to adjust Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs award upward or downward. See Kerr, 526 F.2d 24 at 70.

25 . . .

26 . . .

27 1 Plaintiff urges the Court to award a rate consistent with the norm in this jurisdiction (Doc. 45 at 6), and to give counsel the benefit of the doubt, the Court assumes counsel meant the District of Arizona, not the Northern District of Ohio, as stated in Plaintiff’s brief.

1 C. Anticipated Collection Costs 2 The remaining issue is Plaintiff's request for prospective costs related to collecting || on the default judgment. In this District, courts have held that anticipated collection fees must be sufficiently supported. Dunson v. RMH Franchise Corp., Case No. 4:23-cv-00148- RM, at Doc. 12, p. 4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2023); Stamper v. Freebird Logistics, Inc., 2022 || WL 4448457, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2022).

7 According to the fee agreement that Plaintiffs counsel typically enters into with || Parker Law Firm P.L.C. (“Parker Law’) to assist them and their clients to collect on 9|| judgments, Parker Law charges a 25% contingency fee plus $850 retainer fee. (Docs. 45- 12, 45-13.) Plaintiff sufficiently shows that he will incur $10,034.06 in collection costs and || fees and the requested amount is reasonable.

12 Ht. CONCLUSION 13 In sum, Plaintiff has demonstrated eligibility and entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter as well as the reasonableness of the requested amount, and Plaintiff has || complied with the Local Rule 54.2(c) and provided the necessary supporting 16|| documentation. Accordingly, the Court will award Plaintiff $32,970.31 in reasonable || attorneys’ fees and costs.

18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff's Motion for Award of || Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against Defendants. (Doc. 45.)

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter Judgment in the principal amount of $32,970.31 for Plaintiff as and for his attorneys’ fees and costs, to || be paid by Defendants jointly and severally, plus interest accruing at the statutory rate. This || case remains closed.

24 Dated this 12th day of November, 2025. CN 26 wefholee— Unifga State#District Judge -4-