Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
DJCBP Corporation (d/b/a Tier One Consulting) and David Ju sued the City of Baldwin Park, several former city officials including former City Attorney Robert Tafoya, and others over alleged misconduct in the city’s commercial cannabis licensing process. After a five-day jury trial in September 2025 on the surviving claims (negligent hiring/retention/supervision against the City and fraud against three individual defendants), the jury returned a $1,600,000 verdict against Tafoya on the fraud claim. The plaintiffs then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs against the City, requesting $247,897 in fees and $4,037 in costs.
Plaintiffs’ counsel sought a 2.0 multiplier on the lodestar, arguing the contingent-fee nature of the representation and the case’s difficulty justified augmentation.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Christina Snyder granted plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees but denied any lodestar multiplier. Applying California law for the fee award, the court found that plaintiffs were entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees and that the lodestar amount of $247,897 was supported by the time records.
On the multiplier, the court applied Ketchum v. Moses and Hogar Dulce Hogar v. Community Development Commission. A multiplier may be awarded for contingent risk, exceptional skill, or other factors — but is “not required.” Here, the court found (1) the legal issues in the case were not extraordinarily difficult or novel; (2) plaintiffs’ counsel displayed ordinary skill; (3) there was no evidence the litigation precluded counsel from other employment; and (4) many delays in bringing the case to trial could have been avoided by plaintiffs’ counsel. The court also noted that under the contingency-fee agreement (35% of gross recovery), counsel would receive a fee well in excess of the lodestar from the $1.6 million judgment, undercutting any claim that contingent risk justified augmentation. Final judgment was amended to award plaintiffs $247,897 in attorneys’ fees and $4,037.04 in costs against the City.
Key Takeaways
- A lodestar multiplier is discretionary, not mandatory, and requires a specific showing — contingent risk alone does not automatically justify augmentation.
- Where a contingency fee agreement (here 35%) on a substantial verdict ($1.6 million) would already produce fees well in excess of the lodestar, courts will be reluctant to layer on a lodestar multiplier on top.
- The relevant Ketchum factors include: difficulty/novelty of the legal issues, exceptional skill of counsel, the litigation’s preclusive effect on other work, and the contingent risk of nonpayment.
- Delays attributable to plaintiffs’ counsel (rather than the case’s inherent difficulty) weigh against multiplier enhancement.
- In federal court applying California fee-shifting law (here through § 1988-related grounds), the court still applies Ketchum and Hogar Dulce Hogar to the multiplier analysis.
Why It Matters
The decision is a useful reference for fee disputes after substantial verdicts. The court’s analysis confirms that a 2.0 multiplier is far from automatic even in successful contingency cases — counsel must show that the case presented extraordinary difficulty, novel issues, or precluded other work, and that the contingent-fee structure did not already capture the risk premium.
For plaintiffs’ counsel, the lesson is to document the case’s difficulty, novelty, and effect on other practice in real time. For defendants opposing fee motions, this opinion provides citation support for defeating multiplier requests where the case appears to be a reasonably skilled trial lawyer’s ordinary work product on a substantial recovery.