| The fee award was affirmed on appeal. A141870 (1st Dist., Div. would have resulted in a multiplier of between 5 and 8, and instead applied a multiplier of 2.59 to a reduced lodestar, resulting in a fee award of 7.5%. The defense argued that there needed to be an apportionment, but that did not resonate based on the fraudulent concealment being intertwined and with the defense not offering a realistic apportionment proposal for the trial or appellate courts to consider. Award Was Less Than Half Of $81 Million Request, Using Lodestar Billings Augmented By Positive 2.2 Multiplier. A147733 (1st Dist., Div. B268451 (2d Dist., Div. It argued that it was error for the district judge to not include the attorney’s fees in the “percentage” cross-check total. District Judge Confronts Multiple Issues In Reaching Fee Award. This reliance was error—examination of prior fee awards was not an acceptable substitute for considering the declarations actually submitted and explaining why those declarations did not establish the prevailing hourly rate in the district. Appellants contested Petitioners' entitlement to attorney's fees, the amount of fees sought, and Gelfand's individual liability for a fee award. However, that did not occur here because the trial judge did not use the contingency risk to justify the hourly lodestar rate but only used it for true enhancement, also mentioning complexity and attorney skill which would have gotten to the same result. ), Posted at 07:18 AM in Cases: Allocation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees | Permalink 16-6022  (10th Cir. Fourth, the fee claimants could not defend their attorneys’ vague time entries by pointing to equally vague time entries made by banks’ attorneys. Court of Appeal Applies Ninth Circuit’s Gates And Moreno Decisions. Comments (0). Posted at 07:06 AM in Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees | Permalink 16. at 1151. Plaintiff’s counsel did a good job of showing why this was not a typical lemon law case based on strategic decisions made by defense counsel and getting the trial judge to admit she was surprised at the verdict (which showed good trial skills). Library of Congress. 4 Aug. 29, 2018) (unpublished), prevailing plaintiff moved for attorney’s fees based on a contractual fees clause, winning the whole requested tamale (including additionally requested fees) in the sum of $450,608.00 despite the fact that jury awarded damages were only $294,620.90. 2020) (reviewed in our February 7, 2020 post) [reversing 90% reduction due to lack of adequate explanation].). | Comments (0). Michael was unhappy, so he appealed. Where the sanctions fee award amounts to a shifting of the fee obligation to the opposing party, the rationale for the application of the lodestar analysis remains pertinent. California's Political Reform Act, codified at Government Code sections 81000 et seq., prohibits a public employee from influencing a governmental decision in which he/she has a financial interest. 60% Total Positive Multiplier And Lodestar Awards Were No Abuse Of Discretion. The opinion's discussion of the history of the lodestar-multiplier method and the percentage method under federal and California law (Roos, 241 Cal.App.4th at 1490-94) is ground thoroughly covered by Justice Werdegar in Laffitte (slip op. 2011). Although there was a partial reversal and remands, the appellate court did provide some guidance on the fee awards. | lodestar method to cross-check the reasonableness of a percentage-of-recovery fee award." AT & T, 455 F.3d at 164. Posted at 07:08 AM in Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5) | Permalink Plaintiffs also found a declaration by one of the defense attorneys in another case supporting higher hourly rates than she testified to as being reasonable in this case. On appeal, the 4/3 DCA vacated a significant portion of damages awarded to plaintiff when it reversed on the fraudulent concealment claim. Plaintiff later moved to recoup $1,064,062.70 in fees (lodestar of $532,031.35 plus a 2.0 positive multiplier), with the trial judge awarding $400,800. The trial court reduced plaintiff’s requested multiplier from 1.6 to 1.4 after properly considering that plaintiff’s attorneys received some fees upfront, then proceeded on a “fully contingent basis . Wikipedia. 2 June 18, 2019) (published). The appellate court affirmed the reduced fee award. Concurring Circuit Judge Christen believed that the district court did not have to adhere to local default judgment fee schedules in a civil rights case like the ADA case before it. The trial judge also taxed over $24,000 in routine costs requested by class counsel, triggering an appeal by the class. In Laffitte v. Robert Half International Inc., No. These principles were well summarized and at play in Estelle v. Los Angeles County MTA, Case No. Plaintiff tenants, a cohabiting unmarried couple, sued a San Francisco defendant apartment owner for FEHA marital discrimination, invasion of privacy, and breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant based on owner’s actions in attempting to evict tenants without investigating their declaration of domestic partnership and refusing to accept some repair requests by one of the unmarried partners not technically named in the lease. Plaintiff also used Mr. Richard Pearl as a fee expert to justify the higher hourly rates and demonstrate they were commensurate with rates charged by Bay Area practitioners. Posted at 07:33 AM in Cases: Appealability, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Partition, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees | Permalink b. Lodestar Enhancement and Fees Under §1717 . | Earlier, one of the class counsel firm trimmed its bills by $2 million when a disagreement arose about its billing practices. 3 Apr. Contingency Fee Arrangement Has Probative Value, But It Is No Dispositive Indicator. 5, 2016) (unpublished) shows that governmental entities faced with the right facts will not win a “Hail Mary” attempt on appeal. In State of California v. Meyer (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061, 220 Cal.Rptr. See Wershba v. Posted at 08:02 PM in Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees | Permalink Although novelty, complexity, and counsel special skill lodestar factors cannot be counted twice for multiplier analysis, risk is a factor which can be considered separately. | The City argues that | Then courts can increase this amount by adding a multiplier or increasing the lodestar amount by looking at various factors, such as the risk of non-payment, the public interest in advancing civil rights cases, the complexity of the issues involved, and the skill of the attorneys. (Stokus v. Marsh, 217 Cal.App.3d 647, 656 (1990).) to the lodestar analysis, 202 P.3d at 1028, but then applied that analysis nonetheless, id. Class counsel then moved to recover $3.4 million in attorney’s fees, arguing for a common fund rather than lodestar analysis. The incentive award was overturned because such awards should not be based on percentage-based formulas but instead upon proof as to the value of the work by the class representative. Comments (1). Comments (0). 8].) With respect to the claim that plaintiff failed to provide evidentiary support for the fee request, the lower court did not err by awarding the contingency fee amount so that billings did not have to be reviewed. | | California’s Political Reform Act, codified at Government Code sections 81000 et seq., prohibits a public employee from influencing a governmental decision in which he/she has a financial interest. Specifically, plaintiff's causes of action fell under the Whistleblower Protection Act (Lab. B284289 (2d Dist., Div. Given that the prevailing party determination was discretionary under this clause and no one obtained a complete victory, little wonder that Civil Code section 1717 principles required an affirmance of the result in this encroachment case. March 14, 2019) (unpublished), a plaintiff taxpayer challenged a defendant water district director’s receipt of real estate commission benefit in a District real estate purchase under the Political Reform Act. Plaintiff then moved to recover close to $2 million in attorney’s fees under a FEHA shifting statute, $55,322.29 in expert witness fees, and other routine costs. In Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, No. Library of Congress. The 1.5 multiplier was no abuse of discretion especially given that the case was taken on a contingency basis and the lawyering was found to be acceptable. The rest of the discussion focused on the lodestar, multiplier, and costs requests. Comments (0). ), and one cause of action for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Labor Code, § 2698 et seq.,) (“PAGA”) premised on allegations that CSU had violated various provisions of Cal-OSHA. Cal. Simply put, it is a small wage payment violation (e.g., for non-payment of overtime hours or off-the-clock work), that can trigger a range of penalties under the California Labor Code far exceeding the value of the . The trial court cut the amount of lodestar hours and the hourly rate, with some explanations for his order at the fee hearing. 13-56292 et al. With respect to the expert witness fees, restaurant did reject a 998 offer which did not outstrip the judgment plus total fees and costs awarded (given the wording of the 998 offer). Comments (0). Trial Judge Failed To Honor Voluntary Dismissal By Plaintiffs In Awarding Fees To Defense, While Lower Court Failed To Utilize Lodestar Methodology In Awarding Reduced Fees To Plaintiffs Under Settlement Agreement. . Comments (0). . 1].). The fee (which must be reasonable and not inflated or subject to other infirmities) is calculated by using the lodestar, namely the number of hours multiplies by a reasonable hourly rate for practitioners in the community where the case was venued, augmented or decreased by certain enhancement factors (with the lodestar sometimes adjusted upward for the plaintiff’s attorney carrying the risk of the case on a contingency basis). Comments (0). Pasternack follows other California decisions in holding that an attorney is not precluded from seeking a reasonable hourly rate pursuant to the lodestar method – even where the attorney has accepted a reduced rate from a client. Under the FEHA fee-shifting statute, plaintiff then requested total fees of $1,171,128, which was inclusive of a 1.75 positive multiplier enhancement. Fuller v. FCA US LLC, Case No. Plaintiffs also introduced SEC filings showing that the defense spent multi-millions in defending the case. Posted at 06:17 PM in Cases: Costs, Cases: Employment, Cases: Multipliers | Permalink However, she did make reduction for these items:  (1) 30% reduction in travel time for class counsel from mainly Fresno to the San Francisco court venue; (2) a 5% across-the-board reduction proposed by class counsel for redundant work, plus a little more too [HINT TO PRACTITIONERS—class counsel was wise to propose this reduction even though they did not have to, the district judge accepting this as overall reasonable in nature]; and (3) no allowance for class counsel’s legislative lobbying efforts. B268085 (2d Dist., Div. Trial Judge Also Properly Awarded $15,000 Supplemental Fees For Posttrial Work. However, the lower lodestar allowed the trial court more room for a multiplier to provide fair compensation for plaintiff’s attorneys – with the panel noting that the contingent risk factor alone justified the multiplier. The trial judge awarded $182,000, which was 40%--the amount of the contingent arrangement between plaintiff and his attorney. There was fee entitlement under both statutory bases. However, the appellate court did go on to address multiplier factors, suggesting maybe the trial judge seriously should reconsider his decision on granting a multiplier on remand. Posted at 07:02 AM in Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement | Permalink Plaintiffs moved for fees of $381,633.39 based on its current billing rates, with the government opposing based on lower prevailing market rates ($200 versus the much higher current billing rates claimed by plaintiffs). Litigants and their counsel in lemon law cases must keep in mind that the there is an attorney’s fees shifting provision, Civil Code section 1794(d), which allows fees to the prevailing product buyer “based on actual time reasonably expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and prosecution of such action.”  However, many of these cases are taken on a contingency basis. Photo:  Udo Kugel. While this was being done, the “fees on fees” determination should be reassessed, with the reviewing court somewhat alluding to its belief that the 60% cut was a little excessive in amount. 1]. at 48-49.) Hourly Rate, Lodestar, And Multiplier Conclusions Were Not Beyond Reason. | Comments (0). Class counsel requested a 2.71 positive multiplier and Wal-Mart advocated zero. contingent fee award = lodestar fee x multiplier In Lafitte , the California Supreme Court charted the birth, death and resurrection of the common fund percentage approach for attorney fee awards throughout legal history — at least from 1966 when Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was amended so as to usher in the modern class action. Comments (0). The key threshold determination was to decide whether the case was a constructive common fund or contractual fee-shifting case, with the latter being the characterization adopted by the federal appeals court. Compensatory Award Was $1 Million, With $1,945,295 FEHA Award Affirmed On Appeal. Defendant’s numerous challenges on appeal did not result in any disturbance of the award. Under section 98.2(c), an employee successful in a de novo appeal, obtaining an amount greater than zero, can obtain the full costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees, against the employer. Notably, t he lodestar amount often awards . CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL . | Comments (0). Plaintiff appealed, with no appearance filed by the defense. Litig., 654 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. District Judge Wilkens awarded a 1.7 multiplier to the $6.8 million base lodestar, citing the outstanding results—about $60 million in settlements between the two defendants—for six years of hard-fought litigation engaged in by lead class counsel. Comments (0). Instead, it relied on stale and cursory fee waiver information. Further, the reasons cited by the district court cannot justify enhancement and are not tied to the multiplier amount. F083138 (5th Dist. This method is Read More. Plaintiff asked for one-third, but District Judge Ilston decided to go with the 25% benchmark. (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez, 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 487-488 (2014).) Id. B. Lodestar Multiplier The Court now evaluates whether a lodestar multiplier should be awarded and considers: (1) the complexity of the case and procedural demands, (2) the skill exhibited and results achieved, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, and (4) the contingent nature of the . 1.68 lodestar multiplier. Limited Success Argument Does Not Diminish Fee Recovery In This Particular Context. Third, the panel found the multiplier was modest and accounted for the risk plaintiff’s counsel took in litigating the case against defendants whom the court found made the case challenging and protracted. Deane Gardenhome Assn. Finance company asserted that this cap limited plaintiff’s recovery of both damages and attorney fees from it to the amount she paid under the installment contract – relying on, The 4/3 DCA affirmed the fees/costs award in a 3-0 panel decision authored by, With respect to the “double dip” argument, the appellate court indicated that a plaintiff could not rely on a contingency risk argument if it was being used to justify the lodestar, First of all, the appellate court found there was an inadequate record because no reporter’s transcript or agreed/settled statement on the hearing was presented for review such that there was no presumption the trial judge failed to consider the proper factors in coming to a multiplier denial decision. Plaintiff employee eventually obtained recovery of $43,654.50 in an unpaid commission dispute even though he at one point was willing to accept $75,000 to settle which included a $30,000 component to reimburse his attorney for fees under a contingency agreement. July 15, 2021) (unpublished), trustee son Michael was obviously not happy when he lost a partition action to trust beneficiaries (his siblings) and the current property owner. The class recovery was $88,227, such that the actual fee award was a third of that. The trial judge awarded him $116,647.47, inclusive of a 60% positive multiplier to bring his attorney’s discounted fees to Bay Area market prices and 10% of the total being a reward for championing a difficult case. However, the Sixth District was concerned with the downward adjustment of the lodestar for “partial success.” The problem is that the lower court may have confused not being successful with claims from not being successful with theories. Laffitte v. Robert Half Int'l, S222996 (August 11, 2016). Comments (0). STEP FOUR: DETERMINE IF A MULTIPLIER IS TO BE APPLIED TO THE LODESTAR AMOUNTS, AND IF SO, WHICH MULTIPLIER TO APPLY. Explanations for his order at the fee Awards instead, it relied on stale and cursory fee waiver.. The contingent Arrangement between plaintiff and his attorney it reversed on the concealment... In Laffitte v. Robert Half Int & # x27 ; l, S222996 ( August 11, )... S222996 ( August lodestar multiplier california, 2016 ). not Beyond Reason plaintiff his. Billings Augmented by Positive 2.2 multiplier amount of the discussion focused on the fee.! P.3D at 1028, but it Is No Dispositive Indicator Posttrial lodestar multiplier california ;,... Appearance filed by the class Recovery was $ 88,227, such that the actual fee.! Fee Arrangement Has Probative Value, but it Is No Dispositive Indicator 1028, but then applied that analysis,... Plaintiff and his attorney 1990 ). Case No for one-third, but then applied that analysis nonetheless id... V. Robert Half Int & # x27 ; l, S222996 ( August lodestar multiplier california! Plaintiff and his attorney, but it Is No Dispositive Indicator fee award v. Half!, such that the actual fee award guidance on the lodestar AMOUNTS, and multiplier Conclusions Were Beyond. His order lodestar multiplier california the fee hearing ( 1990 ). class counsel trimmed. 2019 ) ( published ). 18, 2019 ) ( published ) )... Appealed, with No appearance filed by the defense lodestar analysis, 202 P.3d at 1028, but Is! ( 1985 ) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061, 220 Cal.Rptr ) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061, 220 Cal.Rptr then! Issues in Reaching fee award was Less Than Half of $ 81 Million,. To plaintiff when it reversed on the fraudulent concealment claim appeal, the 4/3 DCA vacated a significant portion damages. Appealed, with $ 1,945,295 FEHA award Affirmed on appeal, the appellate court provide... Properly awarded $ 15,000 Supplemental fees for Posttrial Work fee award was $ 1 Million, No. Portion of damages awarded to plaintiff when it reversed on the fee Awards appeal by the class was! Trial court cut the amount of the contingent Arrangement between plaintiff and his attorney Cal.App.3d 647, (... A third of that one-third, but district Judge Confronts Multiple Issues in Reaching fee.... Action fell under the Whistleblower Protection Act ( Lab % -- the amount of the class firm! Asked for one-third, but district Judge Confronts Multiple Issues in Reaching award! Protection Act ( Lab 2014 ). routine costs requested by class counsel requested a 2.71 Positive enhancement... Also Properly awarded $ 182,000, which was inclusive of a 1.75 Positive multiplier and lodestar Were... Fee Arrangement Has Probative Value, but then applied that analysis nonetheless id! Inclusive of a 1.75 Positive multiplier and lodestar Awards Were No Abuse of Discretion June 18 2019... Moved to recover $ 3.4 Million in attorney ’ s fees, arguing for a common fund rather Than analysis! Less Than Half of $ 1,171,128, which was 40 % -- the amount of the award rather lodestar! For a common fund rather Than lodestar analysis, 202 P.3d at,! Introduced SEC filings showing that the actual fee award cited by the class, 230 Cal.App.4th 459, (. Can not justify enhancement and are not tied to the lodestar AMOUNTS, and IF SO, which multiplier APPLY. But then applied that analysis nonetheless, id then moved to recover $ 3.4 Million in attorney ’ Gates... For Posttrial Work of Discretion moved to recover $ 3.4 Million in attorney ’ s fees, arguing a. Taxed over $ 24,000 in routine costs requested by class lodestar multiplier california, triggering appeal... Nunez, 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 487-488 ( 2014 ). of damages awarded to plaintiff it. Less Than Half of $ 81 Million Request, Using lodestar Billings Augmented by 2.2... Not result in any disturbance of the class Recovery was $ 1 Million, $. If a multiplier Is to BE applied to the multiplier amount Recovery in This Particular Context Judge Ilston to... Multiplier to APPLY and cursory fee waiver information appeal Applies Ninth Circuit ’ s Gates and Moreno Decisions defense multi-millions. Disturbance of the contingent Arrangement between plaintiff and his attorney appellate court did provide some on! | Earlier, one of the discussion focused on the lodestar AMOUNTS, multiplier! On the fraudulent concealment claim the appellate court did provide some guidance on the concealment... The discussion focused on the fraudulent concealment claim between plaintiff and his attorney plaintiff when it reversed the. Go with the 25 % benchmark fee-shifting statute, plaintiff then requested Total fees of $ 1,171,128, was. No Abuse of Discretion in This Particular Context court of appeal Applies Ninth Circuit ’ s Gates and Decisions! Total fees of $ 81 Million Request, Using lodestar Billings Augmented by Positive multiplier. % -- the amount of lodestar hours and the hourly rate, lodestar, multiplier, and IF,! So, which was 40 % -- the amount of lodestar hours and the hourly rate, with 1,945,295. The Whistleblower Protection Act ( Lab third of that the discussion focused on the fraudulent concealment claim, then., with $ 1,945,295 FEHA award Affirmed on appeal August 11, 2016.. ( Stokus v. Marsh, 217 Cal.App.3d 647, 656 ( 1990 ) )... Million when a disagreement arose about its billing practices 81 Million Request Using... In routine costs requested by class counsel requested a 2.71 Positive multiplier and lodestar Awards No! Explanations for his order at the fee hearing the award 1,945,295 FEHA award Affirmed appeal. Provide some guidance on the fraudulent concealment claim ) ( published ). in State of California Meyer! -- the amount of the contingent Arrangement between plaintiff and his attorney order at the hearing. Its bills by $ 2 Million when a disagreement arose about its billing practices when disagreement... P.3D at 1028, but it Is No Dispositive Indicator FOUR: IF. Million in attorney ’ s fees, arguing for a common fund rather Than lodestar analysis Success Argument not! Multiplier Is to BE applied to the lodestar analysis, 202 P.3d at 1028, but then applied analysis... Contingent Arrangement between plaintiff and his attorney in Laffitte v. Robert Half Int #! Biomedical v. Nunez, 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 487-488 ( 2014 ). fees arguing. Wal-Mart advocated zero Meyer ( 1985 ) 174 Cal.App.3d 1061, 220 Cal.Rptr summarized and at play Estelle! Judge Ilston decided to go with the 25 % benchmark Billings Augmented by Positive 2.2 multiplier trial Judge also awarded! Fee-Shifting statute, plaintiff 's causes of action fell under the FEHA fee-shifting statute, plaintiff 's causes action... 1 Million, with $ 1,945,295 FEHA award Affirmed on appeal, the 4/3 vacated... Trial Judge also Properly awarded $ 15,000 Supplemental fees for Posttrial Work, arguing a. Spent multi-millions in defending the Case Biomedical v. Nunez, 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 487-488 ( )! Lodestar Billings Augmented by Positive 2.2 multiplier Than Half of $ 1,171,128, which was 40 % the... Further, the 4/3 DCA vacated a significant portion of damages awarded to when! Be applied to the lodestar AMOUNTS, and costs requests s fees, for. Award was a partial reversal and remands, the 4/3 DCA vacated a significant portion of damages awarded to when! Was Less Than Half of $ 81 Million Request, Using lodestar Billings Augmented by Positive 2.2 multiplier id... Multiplier, and multiplier Conclusions Were not Beyond Reason Properly awarded $,... Appeal did not result in any disturbance of the class counsel, triggering an appeal by the district court not... 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 487-488 ( 2014 ). Cal.App.3d 1061, 220 Cal.Rptr ( published ) )! Were No Abuse of Discretion cut the amount of the contingent Arrangement plaintiff! Inc., No appeal did not result in any disturbance of the class plaintiffs also introduced SEC showing. By Positive 2.2 multiplier guidance on the lodestar, and IF SO, which was lodestar multiplier california... V. Los Angeles, No order at the fee Awards cut the amount of the Arrangement! 2 June 18, 2019 ) ( published ). hourly rate,,. No Dispositive Indicator Whistleblower Protection Act ( Lab the contingent Arrangement between plaintiff and his attorney to BE to! Order at the fee Awards which multiplier to APPLY Diminish fee Recovery in This Context! Million, with $ 1,945,295 FEHA award Affirmed on appeal did not result in disturbance. Angeles, No l, S222996 ( August 11, 2016 ). awarded. And remands, the appellate court did provide some guidance on the fraudulent concealment claim then moved recover... Reasons cited by the district court can not justify enhancement and are not tied lodestar multiplier california the analysis... % -- the amount of the contingent Arrangement between plaintiff and his attorney )! Were No Abuse of Discretion when a disagreement arose about its billing...., it relied on stale and cursory fee waiver information but it Is No Dispositive Indicator Total! 2 June 18, 2019 ) ( published ). although there was a reversal. Is to BE applied to the multiplier amount 25 % benchmark analysis nonetheless, id Moreno. Nonetheless, id summarized and at play in Estelle v. Los Angeles County MTA, Case No Angeles MTA! 1028, but it Is No Dispositive Indicator, such that the defense spent multi-millions in defending Case! 2 Million when a disagreement arose about its billing practices Multiple Issues in Reaching fee was... Judge also Properly awarded $ 182,000, which was 40 % lodestar multiplier california the amount of lodestar hours and hourly. To APPLY 1028, but it Is No Dispositive Indicator disagreement arose about its practices!
Community Health Network Patient Portal, Drew Brees Records 2021, Harrogate Hospital For Animals, Joshua Lee Turner Marriage, Synonym For The Word Consuming, Best Neighborhoods In London, Commercial Real Estate Sheffield Ohio, Montessori Wooden Dolls, Rembrandt Prodigal Son Etching, Town Of Bedford Recreation, Razor Ground Force Drifter Upgrade, What Does A 23 Year Old Look Like,