1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 13 JIMMY HUDSON, JR., Case No.: 2:23-cv-00761-DDP-JPRx 14 . Petitioner, ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S 15 MOTION TO CONFIRM FINAL 16 Vv. ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR

FURTHER ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND

17 NABORS COMPLETION & COSTS 18 PRODUCTION SERVICES CO., n/k/a C&J WELL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 19 corporation, 20 [Dkt. 18] Respondent. 21 22 23 Presently before the court is Petitioner Jimmy Hudson, Jr.’s (“Hudson”) Petition tc 24 || Confirm Final Arbitration Award and for Further Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and to Ente 25 || Judgment Against Respondent Nabors Completion and Production Services Co. 26 || (“Nabors”). (Dkt. 18.) Having considered the parties’ submissions, the court adopts the 27 || following Order. 28 || ///

|| BACKGROUND > Hudson performed oil well plug and abandonment work for Nabors in the Port of 3 Long Beach, as part of a larger project to replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge. (See Dkt. 4 || 18-10.) On April 2, 2015, former Nabors employees who performed similar work on the 5 || Project filed a putative class action in state court against Nabors for violations under the 6 || California Labor Code, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, 7 including Hudson. (Dkt. 18-2, Donahoo Decl. { 3.) Nabors removed the action to this g || Court, and thereafter filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the parties’ 9 arbitration agreement. (Id. [] 5-6.) This Court denied the motion to compel arbitration. 19 || dd.) Nabors appealed to the Ninth Circuit. (id. The Ninth Circuit reversed and 11 || remanded the court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. (Id. {[ 12.) 12 On March 30, 2018, Hudson submitted a Demand for Arbitration to JAMS, 13 || asserting the following wage-and-hour violations: (1) failure to pay prevailing wages 14. || (Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194, 1771, 1772, 1774 et seq.); (2) waiting time penalties (Cal. Lab. 15 || Code § 203); (3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Cal. Lab. Code § 16 || 226(a)); and (4) unfair competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). (Id. [ 13, Ex. C.) 17 || Thereafter, the Honorable Franz E. Miller (Ret.) was appointed as arbitrator 18 || (“Arbitrator”). (Id. {| 19; Ex. F.) 19 On July 26, 2021, Hudson filed a motion for summary adjudication pursuant to 20 || JAMS Employment Rule 18. (Id. {| 20.) On September 24, 2021, the Arbitrator denied 21 || Hudson’s motion. (Id. J 21., Ex. G.) On March 3, 2022, the matter proceeded to a virtual 22 || arbitration hearing. (Id. {| 23.) On August 23, 2022, the Arbitrator issued an Interim 23 || Arbitration Award. (Id., Ex. H.)) 24 On September 23, 2022, Hudson filed a motion to set the amount of attorney’s fees 25 || and costs with the Arbitrator. (Id. { 24.) On January 9, 2023, the Arbitrator issued a Fina 26 || Arbitration Award and awarded Hudson’s requested attorneys’ fees without a 27 || multiplier. (Id.; Ex. I) Through the Final Arbitration Award, the Arbitrator awarded 28

1 Hudson $154,712.63 in unpaid wages, $134,934.26 in interest through March 3, 2022, 5 continuing interest from March 4, 2022, in the amount of $42.39 daily until paid in full, 3 $150,391.75 in attorneys’ fees, and $4,174.50 in costs. (Id.) 4 Hudson now moves to confirm the Final Arbitration Award and seeks $11,300.00 5 || in post-award attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs for filing of the initial complaint in this 6 confirmation action. (Mot. at 13-15; Donahoo Decl. {| 37, 45.) 7 || □□ LEGAL STANDARD 8 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 9 Under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), upon application by a 10 || party for an order confirming an arbitration award, “the court must grant such an order 11 || unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11” of 12 || the FAA. 9 U.S.C. § 9. “Section 10 lists grounds for vacating an award, while § 11 names 13 || those for modifying or correcting one.” Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc. 552 U.S. 14 || 576, 582 (2008). 15 The grounds for vacating an arbitration award are “limited” and “exclusive.” 16 || Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache Trade Servs., Inc., 341 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir. 2003). 17 || “Neither erroneous legal conclusions nor unsubstantiated factual findings justify federal 18 || court review of an arbitral award under the statute, which is unambiguous in this 19 || regard.” Id. As relevant here, Section 10 of the FAA permits vacatur where “the 20 || arbitrators exceeded their powers....” 9U.S.C.§ 10. Arbitrators “exceed their powers” 21 || “not when they merely interpret or apply the governing law incorrectly, but when the 22 || award is completely irrational or exhibits a manifest disregard of law.” Id. at 997 23 || (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To vacate an arbitration award on [the 24 || ground of manifest disregard of the law], ‘[i]t must be clear from the record that the 25 || arbitrators recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.’” Biller v. Toyota Motor 26 || Corp., 668 F.3d 655, 665 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at 27 || Lloyd’s, London, 607 F.3d 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2010)). 28

1 B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs > An employee who prevails in a civil action pursuant to California Labor Code 3 Sections 1194(a) and 226(e) is entitled to recover an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees 4 and costs. See Cal. Lab. Code § 1194(a) (“[A]ny employee receiving less than the legal 5 || minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is 6 entitled to recover ... reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.”); Cal. Lab. Code § 7 || 226(e) (“An employee suffering injury as a result of a knowing and intentional failure by g || an employer to comply with [Section 226(a)] . . . is entitled to an award of costs and g || reasonable attorney’s fees.”). 10 Once a party has established that it is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, □□□□□ 11 || remains for the district court to determine what fee is reasonable.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 12 || 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The “starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable 13 || fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a 14 || reasonable hourly rate.” Id. This is called the “lodestar” method. The fee applicant mus 15 || submit evidence of the hours worked and the rates claimed. Although the fee applicant 16 || bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documentation of the 17 || appropriate hours expended and hourly rates, a prevailing party “is not required to 18 || record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended.” Id. at 437.12. The 19 || prevailing party seeking attorneys’ fees need only “identify the general subject matter of 20 || his time expenditures” to meet its burden of establishing its fee request is reasonable. Id. 21 || This limited obligation reflects the broader policy that a “request for attorney’s fees 22 || should not result in a second major litigation.” Id. at 437. 23 || IN. DISCUSSION 24 A. Confirmation of Arbitration Award 25 Nabors contends that the Arbitrator exhibited a manifest disregard of the law 26 || through several alleged errors with respect to Nabors’ liability and damages. (Dkt. 20, 27 || Opp. at 1-2.) Specifically, Nabors argues that the Arbitrator erred in the following: 28

1 (1) rejecting, and not giving any deference to, the Labor Commissioner’s decision that Nabors’ subject work in the [Port of 2 Long Beach] was “not within the jurisdiction of California Public 3 Work Law” and therefore exempt from [California Labor Code § 1720, et seq.]; and (2) deeming the subject work as a public work and 4 awarding [Hudson’s] prevailing wages even though there are no 5 prevailing wage rates—or applicable classifications—established by the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) for [Hudson/’s] oil field 6 work. 7 |) dd) 8 Nabors, however, fails to identify any instances in the record where the Arbitrator g || “recognized the applicable law and then ignored it.” See Biller, 668 F.3d at 665. The 19 || alleged errors are based on misinterpretation or misapplication of the law—such legal 11 || errors are insufficient to vacate an Arbitration Award. “The risk that arbitrators may 12 || construe the governing law imperfectly in the course of delivering a decision that 13 || attempts in good faith to interpret the relevant law, or may make errors with respect to 14 || the evidence on which they base their rulings, is a risk that every party to arbitration 15 || assumes, and such legal and factual errors lie far outside the category of conduct 16 || embraced by § 10(a)(4).” Kyocera, 341 F.3d at 1003. Finding no manifest disregard of the 17 || law exhibited in the Arbitration Award, the court declines to vacate the Arbitration 18 || Award. 19 The court therefore grants Hudson’s Petition to confirm the Arbitration Award. 20 B. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 21 As the prevailing party in this action, Hudson is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ 22 || fees and costs, including fees incurred in connection with the confirmation action. See 23 || Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1194(a), 226(e).! Thus, the only issue before the court is whether the 24 yf; 25 1 Nabors contends, as it did in the related confirmation actions, see, e.g., Ridgeway v. 26 || Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., No. 15-cv-3436-DDP-JPR, 2021 WL 2646902 at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2021), Ridgeway v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., 27 No. 15-cv-3436-DDP-JPR, 2021 WL 3184226, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2021), Ronquillo v. 28

1 requested fees and costs are reasonable. > Hudson seeks $11,300 in attorneys’ fees. The court finds, and Nabors does not 3 dispute, that the rates set forth by Hudson’s counsel are within the range of reasonable 4 || tates for attorneys in the local community, taking into consideration the “experience, 5 skill, and reputation of the attorney.” Schwarz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 6 || F-3d 895, 908 (9th Cir. 1995). Specifically, the court finds that the following rates are 7 || reasonable: 8 e Richard E. Donahoo, Attorney; $700/hour e Sarah L. Kokonas, Attorney: $495/hour 9 19 || With respect to the time spent for work performed on this matter, Hudson’s counsel has 11 || submitted detailed billing records of work performed and an accompanying declaration. 12 || (See Donahoo Decl. {| 37-39; 42-44 & Ex. J.) Hudson’s motion and Richard Donahoo’s 13 || declaration estimate that counsel spent a total of 17.9 hours on tasks related to the post- 14 || award confirmation action. (Mot. at 17; Donahoo Decl. {| 37.) Of these hours, Hudson 15 || claims that 8.9 hours are attributable to Richard Donahoo, 6 hours are attributable to 16 || Sarah Kokonas, and 3.0 hours are attributable to time Richard Donahoo anticipated he 17 || would spend preparing a reply and anticipated judgment. (Mot. at 16-17; Donahoo Decl. 18 || I 37-39, 42-44.) The court has adjusted these hours for reasonableness. Specifically, the 19 || court has subtracted 1.8 hours from the amount of time billed by Richard Donahoo in 20 || connection with the preparation of the petition and motion to confirm the arbitration 21 22 Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., No. 21-cv-5535-DDP-JPR, 2022 WL 370958, 23 || at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021), Gutierrez v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. 24 || Co, 21-cv-8435-DDP-JPR, 2022 WL 671547, at *3 n. 1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2022), and Gibson v. Nabors Completion & Production Servs. Co., No. 21-cv-8450-DDP-JPR, 2022 WL 25 1092628, at *3 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2022), that Rosales’s request for post-award fees is 26 || improper. (Opp. at 8.) The court stands by its previous analysis and rulings in the prop PP ylusp y above-referenced matters regarding post-award fees. Accordingly, the issue of post- 8 &P BtY. award fees is properly before this Court. 28

1 award. Given that the court decided to take this matter under submission without a > hearing, the court has subtracted 0.8 hours from the amount of time Richard Donahoo 3 anticipated billing for preparing for and attending the hearing. Applying the approved 4 || tates to the adjusted hours, the lodestar method yields the following result: Lodesta $6510 7 || saran Kokonas__|s95_ |_| s,970 $980 9 With these adjustments, the chart above reflects the reasonable number of hours expended by counsel in relation to the confirmation action and request for post-award fees. Thus, Hudson is entitled to $9,480 in fees and $402 for the cost of filing the

B complaint.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS Hudson’s Petition to Confirm the

Arbitration Award. The Final JAMS Arbitration Award issued by Hon. Franz E. Miller

(Ret.) on January 9, 2023, in the Arbitration JAMS Case No. 1220058994, is confirmed.

18 This Court shall enter judgment in favor of Jimmy Hudson, Jr. and against Nabors in the

19 amount of $154,712.63 in unpaid wages, $134,934.26 in interest through March 3, 2022, continuing interest from March 4, 2022, in the amount of $42.39 daily until paid in full, $150,391.75 in attorneys’ fees, and $4,174.50 in costs. > The court further GRANTS Hudson’s request for post-award attorneys’ fees in the 03 amount of $9,480 and for costs in the amount of $402. 24 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: June 2, 2023 26 DEAN D. PREGERSON 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28