Vargas v. Martinez-Senftner Law Firm CA3

Filed 6/5/14 Vargas v. Martinez-Senftner Law Firm CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer)

MARIA VARGAS, C069218

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCV 17868)

v.

MARTINEZ-SENFTNER LAW FIRM, P.C., et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Plaintiff prevailed against defendants in her Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.; hereafter FEHA)1 lawsuit and was awarded $368,000 in damages and an additional $211,111.63 in attorney fees. (§ 12965, subd. (b).) (Vargas v. Martinez-Senftner (Dec. 10, 2010, C055633 & C056198) [nonpub. opn.] (Vargas).) Defendants appealed the judgment and the postjudgment order awarding attorney fees, and we affirmed both the judgment and the postjudgment order. (Ibid.) Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel sought an additional $576,515.51 in attorney fees for work performed

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.

1

after the filing of the initial attorney fees request in mid-2007. The trial court awarded plaintiff an additional $224,675.71 in attorney fees. Defendants appeal the second attorney fees award, contending it “is unreasonable in light of the work actually performed” and should have been further reduced “for duplicative and/or superfluous work.” Defendants also claim the trial court abused its discretion in taking judicial notice of various documents. Finding no error, we shall affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Maria Vargas sued her former employer, Martinez-Senftner Law Firm, P.C. (MSLF), its principal Gloria Martinez-Senftner (Martinez-Senftner), Martinez- Senftner’s husband James Senftner (James), and her son Wayne Senftner (Wayne) for sexual harassment and retaliation under FEHA (§12940, subds. (h), (j)).2 (Vargas, supra, C055633 & C056198.) Plaintiff also asserted causes of action against MSLF for gender discrimination and failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring (§ 12940, subds. (a), (k)). (Vargas, supra, C055633 & C056198.) A jury found James and Wayne sexually harassed plaintiff while plaintiff worked at MSLF, and that MSLF failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such harassment. (Ibid.) The jury found against plaintiff on her remaining claims. (Ibid.) The jury awarded plaintiff $368,000 in damages ($68,000 in compensatory damages, $75,000 in punitive damages against each MSLF and James, and $150,000 against Wayne). (Ibid.) Following the entry of judgment, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for attorney fees. On May 23, 2007, the trial court granted plaintiff’s request for attorney fees in the amount of $211,111.63. MSLF on the one hand and James and Wayne on the other separately appealed from the judgment and postjudgment order awarding attorney fees, contending “there