Lopez v. Babas Motorsports LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Sergio Lopez,
Plaintiff,
v.
Babas Motorsports LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-24-03090-PHX-JJT
ORDER
At issue is Plaintiff Sergio Lopez’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
against Defendants. (Doc. 45, Motion.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant
Plaintiff’s Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
In this case, Plaintiff alleged Defendants Babas Motorsports LLC, Amel Mohmmed
Ataalaha and Baneta Nahrain Ataalaha (husband and wife) failed to pay Plaintiff wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(a) (“FLSA”), the Arizona
Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. § 23-363 (“AMWA”), and the Arizona Wage Act, A.R.S.
§ 23-350. Defendants ceased participation in this case after their counsel withdrew
(Doc. 35). The Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff, awarding him $13,800
in damages. (Docs. 43, 44.) Plaintiff now requests his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs,
and Defendants have not filed any responsive memoranda in opposition. Pursuant to Local
Rule 7.2(i), the Court may deem Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s request for
attorneys’ fees and costs as consent to granting Plaintiff’s Motion. Still, the Court
Case 2:24-cv-03090-JJT Document 47 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
independently reviews Plaintiff’s Motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2)—
the default judgment rule—and for compliance with Local Rule 54.2(c). (See Doc. 43.)
II. ANALYSIS
Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.2, a party seeking an award of attorneys’
fees and related non-taxable expenses must show that the party is eligible for and entitled
to an award and that the requested award is reasonable. LRCiv 54.2(c).
A. Eligibility and Entitlement
A party’s eligibility and entitlement to an attorneys’ fees award depends on the
applicable statutory, contractual, or legal authority “upon which the movant seeks an
award.” LRCiv 54.2(c)(1)–(2). Here, Plaintiff is eligible for and entitled to recover his
attorneys’ fees under the FLSA, which provides that “[t]he Court in such action shall, in
additional to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable
attorneys’ fee to be paid by the defendant, and cost of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
Plaintiff is also eligible for and entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees under the AMWA,
which provides that “[a] prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees
and costs of suit.” A.R.S. § 23-364(G). If a plaintiff receives at least some relief on the
merits of his claim, he can be said to prevail. Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760 (1987).
Therefore, Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is eligible for and entitled to recover his
reasonable attorneys’ fees.
B. Reasonableness
To determine whether attorneys’ fees are reasonable, courts apply the lodestar
method. Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir.
1990). The lodestar approach consists of two steps. Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d
942, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2007). “First, the court establishes a lodestar by multiplying the
number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate,”
excluding from the requested amount “any hours that are excessive, redundant, or
otherwise unnecessary.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Then, in rare cases, “the district
court may adjust the lodestar upward or downward using a multiplier based on facts not
Case 2:24-cv-03090-JJT Document 47 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
subsumed in the initial lodestar calculation.” Id. (internal citation omitted). Local Rule
54.2(c) lists 13 factors the Court should consider when determining reasonableness
including time and labor, fees, and experience of counsel.
Plaintiff seeks $22,319 in fees already incurred, $617.25 in costs, and an additional
$10,034.06 in prospective collection costs. In his Motion, Plaintiff has duly provided the
Court with counsel’s detailed billing records, representation agreement, and the other
documentation necessary to support the request for fees and costs. (Docs. 45-1, 45-8, 45-
9.)
Plaintiff has demonstrated that the requested attorneys’ fees and costs are
reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel, Clifford P. Bendau, II, and Christopher J. Bendau, are
seeking attorneys’ fees at the hourly rates of $495 and $445, respectively. Such a rate does
not exceed the market rate and is not unreasonable.1 See LRCiv 54.2(c)(3); Kerr v. Screen
Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). Likewise, the number of hours
expended by counsel—35.2 hours incurred by Clifford P. Bendau, and 11 hours incurred
by Chistopher J. Bendau—is reasonable considering the time expended to prepare the
complaint, engage in settlement discussions, seek default judgment, and prepare and file
the present motion, as well as to effectuate service upon Defendant. There is no redundancy
or lack of necessity in the work reported.
Turning to the other factors outlined in Local Rule 54.2(c), Plaintiff states that there
were no novel or difficult legal issues present, Plaintiff’s counsel were not significantly
precluded from other work because of this representation, and Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly
rate is warranted by their experience, reputation, and ability. Therefore, there is no basis to
adjust Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs award upward or downward. See Kerr, 526 F.2d
at 70.
. . .
. . .
1 Plaintiff urges the Court to award a rate consistent with the norm in this jurisdiction
(Doc. 45 at 6), and to give counsel the benefit of the doubt, the Court assumes counsel
meant the District of Arizona, not the Northern District of Ohio, as stated in Plaintiff’s
brief.
Case 2:24-cv-03090-JJT Document 47 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. Anticipated Collection Costs
The remaining issue is Plaintiff’s request for prospective costs related to collecting
on the default judgment. In this District, courts have held that anticipated collection fees
must be sufficiently supported. Dunson v. RMH Franchise Corp., Case No. 4:23-cv-00148-
RM, at Doc. 12, p. 4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2023); Stamper v. Freebird Logistics, Inc., 2022
WL 4448457, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2022).
According to the fee agreement that Plaintiff’s counsel typically enters into with
Parker Law Firm P.L.C. (“Parker Law”) to assist them and their clients to collect on
judgments, Parker Law charges a 25% contingency fee plus $850 retainer fee. (Docs. 45-
12, 45-13.) Plaintiff sufficiently shows that he will incur $10,034.06 in collection costs and
fees and the requested amount is reasonable.
III. CONCLUSION
In sum, Plaintiff has demonstrated eligibility and entitlement to attorneys’ fees and
costs in this matter as well as the reasonableness of the requested amount, and Plaintiff has
complied with the Local Rule 54.2(c) and provided the necessary supporting
documentation. Accordingly, the Court will award Plaintiff $32,970.31 in reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Against Defendants. (Doc. 45.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter Judgment in
the principal amount of $32,970.31 for Plaintiff as and for his attorneys’ fees and costs, to
be paid by Defendants jointly and severally, plus interest accruing at the statutory rate. This
case remains closed.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2025.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-03090-JJT Document 47 Filed 11/13/25 Page 4 of 4