Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cyrus Mofrad sued United Parcel Service in Alameda County Superior Court on March 21, 2023, asserting FEHA sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. UPS removed the case on April 20, 2023. Discovery on the original claims closed March 21, 2024, and the court refused to extend it. Mofrad then amended in April 2024 to add termination-based claims, including FEHA and ADA wrongful termination, with limited further discovery through September 20, 2024.
In December 2024 the court granted summary judgment to UPS on the termination-based claims and several original claims. That left only sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment, and emotional distress to the extent based on the harassment. The court also noted pretrial missteps by Mofrad's counsel, including motions in limine on issues UPS had already stipulated and a failure to confer on and timely file joint jury instructions. The case settled before trial.
Mofrad then sought fees under FEHA, after the court had struck his first fee motion and warned that fees would not be awarded for unsuccessful claims. UPS accepted that Mofrad is the prevailing party entitled to reasonable fees on the harassment claims, so the dispute concerned amount. Applying California law through the lodestar method, the court multiplied reasonable hours by reasonable rates.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the six claims lost at summary judgment were not factually or legally interrelated with the surviving harassment claims, so time spent on them is not compensable. The six were two retaliation claims, two failure-to-accommodate claims, and two public-policy wrongful termination claims. Counsel identified no connection beyond a shared period of employment and did not segregate time by claim. The court described the billing records as a 'data dump,' citing entries such as 18.8 hours for drafting a summary judgment opposition. It found counsel's roughly 30 percent reduction of that single brief's time inadequately explained and far too small.
UPS also pointed to entries for incomplete, unsuccessful, or unnecessary work. Examples included a stipulation never filed, a motion for leave to file a trial brief that had already been filed, and a settlement session UPS said did not occur. Counsel did not meaningfully dispute these, saying only that the work occurred though it did not appear on the docket, and the court agreed such work is not compensable. Because the records were too unreliable to excise line by line, the court cut hours by 50 percent for the unsuccessful claims, less than a proportional two-thirds because some work overlapped. It cut hours by a further 10 percent for unreliable records, block billing, and incomplete or unnecessary work. It declined separate reductions for block billing or overstaffing, reasoning that the other cuts mitigated excess and that it should defer to winning counsel's judgment.
On rates, the court rejected requests of $500, $700, and $1,000 for attorneys with six, ten, and 22 years of experience. It found the case not complex, the skill shown not exceptional, and much of the procedural complexity attributable to counsel's lack of diligence. It gave little weight to the Laffey Matrix and fixed the rates at $400, $500, and $600, adopting the unopposed $240 and $175 rates for support staff. The resulting lodestar was $252,864. The court cut that figure 10 percent for an unreasonably inflated request and another 10 percent as an across-the-board haircut, yielding $204,819.84. It also granted the motion to file materials under seal.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff who wins only some claims should segregate time by claim, and the court treated the failure to do so after an explicit warning as grounds for heavier cuts.
- Vague or block-billed entries can lead a court to apply percentage reductions instead of line-by-line adjustments.
- Hourly rates above the range this District awards to experienced civil rights counsel may be reduced absent forum-specific support, and the court found the Laffey Matrix unhelpful.
- Billing for incomplete, unsuccessful, or unnecessary work is not compensable, and unrebutted challenges can support a reduction.
- The reductions compounded, so the final award is 81 percent of the already-adjusted lodestar.
Why It Matters
This is an unreported district court fee order. It carries no precedential weight, but it shows how a Northern District of California judge applies the Chavez, Hensley, and Moreno framework to a FEHA fee request after a partial summary judgment loss and a settlement.
The order sets the fee award at $204,819.84 and vacates the November 5, 2026 hearing. It identifies no further issues for the district court, and nothing in it addresses an appeal.