1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MANASSEH STOKES, Case No. 20-cv-02086-JSW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, AND 9 v. DENYING, IN PART, PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS 10 SBS TRANSPORT, LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 25, 26 Defendants. 11

12 Now before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to 13 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99 (“Section 1281.99”) arising from 14 Defendants’ breach of the arbitration agreement in this matter and this Court’s Order vacating the 15 order compelling arbitration in this matter. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s request for 16 sanctions and the supplemental declaration in support of the request, and it GRANTS, IN PART, 17 and DENIES, IN PART, Plaintiff’s request. The Court awards sanctions in the amount of 18 $300.00. 19 BACKGROUND 20 On January 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order compelling 21 arbitration in this matter. (Dkt. No. 25.) The Court determined Plaintiff was entitled to sanctions 22 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99 (“Section 1281.99”), which 23 requires a court to impose sanctions against a drafting party in breach of an arbitration agreement 24 by ordering them to pay “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, incurred by 25 the employee or consumer as a result of the material breach.” Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1281.99. Plaintiff 26 requested monetary sanctions in the amount of $23,455.00. Plaintiff’s lump sum request included 27 a $250 arbitration fee, 2.50 hours of a senior associate’s time at an hourly rate of $950, and 24.20 1 hours of counsel’s time at $775. The Court determined it was unable to evaluate the 2 reasonableness of the requested fees based on Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated lump sum request and 3 ordered Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration providing a “detailed accounting” of the 4 request for attorneys’ fees and costs including “detailed time records justifying the hours worked 5 and…a showing that the hourly rates charged are reasonable in light of the prevailing market rates 6 in the relevant legal market.” (Dkt. 25 at 5:24-25.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to exclude fees 7 and costs incurred opposing the initial motion to compel arbitration. 8 On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Sara Tosdal, filed a supplemental declaration 9 supporting the request for sanctions. (Dkt. No. 26 (“Tosdal Decl.”).) Counsel requests fees and 10 costs in the amount of $14,265.60, which includes the time spent on the motion to vacate the order 11 compelling arbitration and arbitration fee. (Id. ¶ 2.) Counsel now attests the arbitration initiation 12 fee was $300. (Id.; Ex. B.) She attests a team of three attorneys, including herself, senior 13 associate Joshua Boxer, and a junior associate, Kristen Doyen, worked on the present motion. (Id. 14 ¶¶ 3-4, 6.) Doyen was not mentioned in the original request for sanctions. Tosdal attests she spent 15 7.8 hours preparing the motion to vacate, reviewing Defendants’ opposition, reviewing the reply 16 brief and preparing the instant declaration. (Id. ¶ 7.) Counsel further attests Boxer spent 1.5 hours 17 reviewing the motion and Doyen spent “a minimum of 15 hours conducting legal research, 18 reviewing Defendants’ opposition and supporting documents, and preparing the reply brief to 19 Plaintiff’s motion to vacate.” (Id.) In support of the hours worked, counsel submits a chart 20 summarizing the total hours worked for each attorney. (Id., Ex. A.) 21 ANALYSIS 22 “The party seeking fees bears the burden of documenting the hours expended in the 23 litigation and must submit evidence supporting those hours ...” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480

, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart,

(1983)). 25 Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to meet this burden. The Court’s prior Order made clear that to 26 establish the reasonableness of the requested fees, Plaintiff would be required to submit detailed 27 time records establishing the time worked and tasks performed on this matter. Counsel has failed 1 The supplemental declaration provides little information beyond the conclusory assertions 2 of hours worked and time spent in the original motion and thus, fails to correct the deficiencies 3 identified by the Court in its prior Order. Plaintiff has not identified discrete tasks performed by 4 counsel, the specific amount of time spent on each task, or a breakdown of the days on which 5 tasks were performed. Plaintiff’s broad categorization of activities such as “Law & Motion” and 6 “Research/ Document Review/ Internal Communications” is insufficient because it provides no 7 details justifying the hours worked. See Tosdal Decl., Ex. A. Importantly, Plaintiff has still not 8 attached billing records or time entries for the work performed on this matter. The chart Plaintiff 9 submitted is not a billing record and it is not a justification of the hours worked; it simply 10 repackages the lump sum request from the declaration in a different format. Given that the 11 opening and reply brief combined constitute fewer than ten pages of argument and include 12 minimal legal citations, the Court cannot conclude twenty-four hours to be a reasonable 13 expenditure of time absent any evidence supporting the work done. 14 Additionally, Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration creates unexplained inconsistencies 15 between the fees requested in the original motion and the fees requested in the supplemental 16 declaration. Counsel now attests fifteen hours of work—the bulk of the work on this motion— 17 was performed by Doyan, an associate who was not mentioned in the original motion. Counsel 18 offers no explanation for this, but either Doyan’s hours were erroneously excluded from the 19 original motion or were improperly attributed to a different attorney. This unexplained 20 inconsistency underscores the importance of billing records in fee requests. And in the absence of 21 any detailed billing entries, this unexplained inconsistency adds to the Court’s difficulty in 22 assessing the reasonableness of the fees. 23 Accordingly, given the absence of proper evidence from Plaintiff on the hours worked and 24 the inconsistencies in the requested fees, the Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to meet his 25 burden to establish the reasonableness of the hours worked. The Court is unable to accurately 26 determine whether the fees incurred by the lawyers as a result of the breach are reasonable. The 27 Court thus DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions to the extent he seeks attorney’s fees and will ] Counsel also requests reimbursement of Plaintiffs initial arbitration filing fee in the 2 || amount of $300. Counsel includes the firm’s billing record of this payment and a confirmation of 3 || payment in that amount from AAA. (See Tosdal Decl., Ex. B.) The Court finds this is a 4 || reasonable expense, which Defendants should be ordered to pay as sanctions for their breach in 5 accordance with Section 1281.99. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, 8 || Plaintiff's request for sanctions and ORDERS Defendants to pay Plaintiff $300.00 as reasonable 9 || expenses under Section 1281.99. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: January 12, 2023 i } □ 12 \ L Uthouy JEFFREY /. (WHI 13 United Stdles Distfict Judge (14

16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28