Williams v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority CA2/3

Filed 4/5/16 Williams v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ROBERT WILLIAMS, B259327

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC467568) v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Holly E. Kendig, Judge. Affirmed. Schuler & Brown, Jack M. Schuler, Tina Javaherian; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Martin Stein, Alison Turner and Carolyn Oill for Defendant and Appellant. The Mirroknian Law Firm, Reza Mirroknian and Peter A. Javanmardi for Plaintiff and Respondent. ___________________________________

INTRODUCTION Defendant and appellant the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) appeals from an order awarding attorney fees to plaintiff and respondent Robert Williams, who prevailed in his disability discrimination-related lawsuit under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). In awarding fees to Williams, the trial court calculated a lodestar figure and applied a 1.5 multiplier. The MTA contends on appeal that the court abused its discretion by applying the multiplier. We reject the contention and affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Williams began working as a MTA bus operator in 1997. After Williams became disabled, the MTA fired him. Williams sued the MTA under the FEHA. A jury found in Williams’s favor on his causes of action for disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and failure to engage in a timely and good faith interactive process but against Williams on his retaliation cause of action. The jury awarded $498,098.08 in damages to Williams.1 Reza Mirroknian and Pedram Javanmardi represented Williams in that action on a full contingency basis, with no retainer or costs paid by Williams. Williams moved for attorney fees. Mirroknian requested a $600 hourly rate and Javanmardi requested a $325- to-$425 hourly rate. Labor and employment attorneys submitted declarations stating that these hourly rates were within the range of what Los Angeles attorneys in that practice area charge. Counsel also requested a multiplier of 2, based on the complexity of the issues, the risk in pursuing a contingency case, and the loss of other business. The trial judge, who had presided over the entire case, including the almost two- week jury trial, granted attorney fees and applied a 1.5 multiplier. With respect to the lodestar, the court accepted Mirroknian’s $600 hourly rate, “in light of his 17 years of experience and ultimately, the skill he employed in representing his client in this