A California federal judge has ordered two attorneys from a Santa Monica based law firm to pay Walmart $623,000 in attorney fees as a sanction in their client’s decertified class action that accused Walmart of falsely labeling its avocado oil as containing only avocado oil despite allegedly containing other oils.

In imposing sanctions against Los Angeles County resident Edie Golikov and two of her attorneys at Dovel & Luner LLP, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner on Friday awarded the retail giant a total of $623,738.70 for nearly 843 hours its attorneys spent fighting off the lawsuit that alleged Walmart’s Great Value Avocado Oil labeling is false and misleading.

Judge Klausner rejected Golikov’s contention that Walmart’s time entries were unreasonable, excessive, or too vague. Among other things, he dismissed her argument that the entries were duplicative because Walmart staffed multiple attorneys on the same task.

"Courts in this district have determined it is reasonable to have multiple attorneys perform one task," Judge Klausner wrote. He said the court would not impose its own judgment regarding how a law firm should operate or determine whether different staffing decisions would have been better.

"Absent more reasoning from plaintiff, the court finds defendant’s decision regarding staffing the case to be appropriate," Judge Klausner wrote.

Addressing Golikov’s argument that Walmart’s billing records were too vague because they included generic terms such as "draft," "work on," and "revise," Judge Klausner said attorneys are not required to record in "great detail" how every minute of their time was spent, so long as they identify the general matter involved.

"Here, the billing records are sufficiently detailed to meet this standard, 'as they specify the time spent down to the tenth of an hour and provide descriptions of the services that were performed,'" Judge Klausner wrote.

Counsel for Golikov and Walmart did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday evening.

Golikov filed the operative first amended putative class action complaint in December 2024, accusing Walmart of misleading consumers seeking unadulterated avocado oil into purchasing impure or mixed products.

Citing scientific testing conducted by researchers at the University of California, Davis, Golikov alleged that Walmart’s Great Value Avocado Oil, which lists avocado oil as its sole ingredient, appeared on the researchers’ list of adulterated oils. She said the testing showed the product contained high levels of other oils, including oleic sunflower or safflower oils, which she argued are cheaper than pure avocado oil and have different health and culinary properties.

The research also found that Walmart’s avocado oil failed both a fatty acid profile and sterol tests, which the researchers considered the most important indicators of adulteration, according to Golikov.

She alleged Walmart knew, or should have known, that its oil was adulterated and should have tested the product given widespread awareness of adulteration in the avocado oil market.

Golikov accused Walmart of violating California’s False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and asserted claims for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and quasi contract. She sought injunctive relief, restitution, and actual and punitive damages.

Golikov initially secured class certification in late February, seeking to represent a California class of consumers who purchased Walmart’s Great Value Avocado Oil during the applicable statute of limitations period. That same day, the court dismissed her claim for punitive damages.

In June, Judge Klausner granted Walmart’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome. In August, the court decertified the class, finding Golikov failed to show her claims were typical of the proposed class. Although she sought to represent in store purchasers, Golikov had made her purchase online under an arbitration agreement and class action waiver.

The court concluded Golikov was "never eligible" to represent the class, meaning the class "was not duly certified," because she was subject to the arbitration agreement and waiver "from the onset of the litigation."

In November, Walmart sought sanctions against Golikov and two of her attorneys, arguing they "unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings" by concealing the fact that Golikov purchased the product on Walmart.com and agreed to arbitration and a class action waiver.

In a supplemental brief, Walmart sought $745,422.75 for 1,009.5 hours of work. Judge Klausner awarded fees for 842.8 hours, excluding 166.7 hours related to pursuing sanctions.

"The court does not view the motion for sanctions and the litigation following the motion as part of the plaintiff’s multiplication of the proceedings," Judge Klausner wrote. "Therefore, the court declines to award Defendant the costs associated with obtaining sanctions."

According to a joint status report filed Dec. 8, the parties were still exploring whether the case could be resolved, noting that Golikov "has not yet initiated arbitration."

Golikov is represented by Richard Lyon and Christin Cho of Dovel & Luner LLP. Walmart is represented by Jacob M. Harper of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The case is Edie Golikov v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08211, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.