Carter v. JAI-PUT Enterprise Inc.

Background

Decatuer Carter sued JAI-PUT Enterprise Inc., doing business as Junk King, and Krishna Vepa over alleged wage-and-hour violations. He brought individual claims and, under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), representative claims seeking civil penalties for other aggrieved employees. His claims concerned meal and rest breaks, overtime, wage statements, final wages, wage deductions, expense reimbursement, retaliation, wrongful termination, and related matters.

After a four-day bench trial, the court entered judgment for Carter on some claims and for Defendants on others. Carter received $5,267.10 in individual damages for meal-period premiums, unpaid overtime, waiting-time penalties, and wage deductions. The court also awarded $36,400 in PAGA penalties for certain overtime, wage-statement, final-wage, and wage-deduction violations. The court did not award PAGA penalties for meal-period or waiting-time violations and found that Carter had not proved several other claims.

Motion to Alter the Judgment

Carter sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). First, he argued that the court should award PAGA penalties for employees’ waiting-time violations under California Labor Code section 203. The court denied that part of the motion. It held that Carter had not shown clear error because his earlier filings offered only conclusory arguments, did not provide supporting legal authority, and did not correctly calculate the requested penalties.

Second, Carter asked the court to clarify how the PAGA penalties would be distributed. The court granted that part of the motion in accordance with the parties’ stipulated judgment. Of the $36,400 total, $27,300 was allocated to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and $9,100 was apportioned among Carter and 34 aggrieved employees. The order listed each individual’s allocation.

The court ordered Defendants to pay current employees within fourteen days. For former employees, Defendants must make diligent and documented efforts to locate them, including using third-party search tools if necessary, and must file sworn monthly declarations describing payments and search efforts. If a former employee cannot be located after a reasonable search, Defendants may ask the court for permission to deposit that person’s funds with the California State Controller’s Office. The parties were also ordered to meet and confer about payment to the labor agency and unresolved issues concerning former employees.

Attorneys’ Fees

Carter requested $313,350 in attorneys’ fees based on a claimed lodestar of $348,166.17 for 592.42 hours. The court found that Carter was entitled to fees because he prevailed on wage, overtime, and PAGA claims. It rejected Defendants’ arguments that Carter was not a prevailing party, that the fees had to be reduced simply because he lost some claims, and that the fee award had to be proportional to his damages.

The court concluded that Carter’s meal-break claim and several unsuccessful Labor Code claims were factually intertwined with his successful wage claims, so the court did not exclude all time associated with those claims. But it excluded time related to unsuccessful, separable claims, including Carter’s Fair Labor Standards Act, retaliation, wrongful-termination, and unfair-competition claims, as well as work concerning former plaintiff Joshua Parshey’s dismissed claims.

The court approved an $850 hourly rate for Jocelyn Burton, a $325 rate for Scott Nakama, a reduced $300 rate for Mara Sackman, and a $165 rate for paralegal Helen O’Keefe. Because counsel’s billing records were vague and the court could not precisely identify all time associated with the litigation problems, it reduced all timekeepers’ hours by 50 percent. The court awarded $173,435 in attorneys’ fees: $132,855 for Burton, $6,630 for Nakama, $31,590 for Sackman, and $2,360 for O’Keefe.

Disposition

The court’s order states that Carter’s motion to alter the judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Carter’s motion for attorneys’ fees was also granted in part and denied in part. The court amended the judgment to state the individual damages, the total PAGA penalties, and their allocation, and it awarded $173,435 in attorneys’ fees. The opinion does not identify the judge by name.