Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV36583, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV36583 Hearing Date: November 19, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion
for Attorney's Fees
Plaintiff's Motion
for Attorney's Fees is granted in the reduced amount of $87,570.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Suits America, Inc.,
filed this action against Neda Menswear, Inc.
(“Neda”), Peyman Elyasi, and Leo Imaani, Inc. (“Leo”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants fraudulently
induced Plaintiff into agreements for the sale of Plaintiff’s products, by
fraudulently representing that they would pay, by delivering certain checks
drawn from accounts having no funds. The causes of action are: Common Counts,
Promissory Fraud, and Fraudulent Uttering and Delivery of Check or Drafts in
Violation of California Penal Code §476a.
On August 6, 2024, the Court held Neda and Leo in default
because they failed to obtain counsel. Following a non-jury trial, the Court
found in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. The Court entered judgment
for Plaintiff against Defendants for $72,442.55 in damages.
Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees. Defendants did
not file an opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A party may not recover
attorney fees unless expressly authorized by statute or contract.” Code Civ.
Proc., § 1021. “In the absence of a statute authorizing the recovery of
attorney fees, the parties may agree on whether and how to allocate attorney
fees.” Brown Bark III, L.P. v. Haver (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 809,
818. (Citing Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th
1338, 1341 (Xuereb)). “[P]arties may agree to award attorney fees on
claims sounding in both contract and tort.” Ibid. The prevailing party on a
contract, which specifically provides for attorney fees and costs incurred to
enforce the agreement, is entitled to reasonable attorney fees in addition to
other costs. Civ. Code § 1717 subd. (a). The court, upon notice and motion by a
party, shall determine the prevailing party and shall fix, as an element of the
costs of suit, the reasonable attorney fees. Civ. Code § 1717 subd. (a), (b).
The moving party bears the burden of establishing
entitlement to attorney fees. Christian Research Institute v. Alnor
(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320.
ANALYSIS
I. Prevailing Party
Plaintiff requests attorney
fees under the attorney fee provision included in all invoices, which are the
subject of Defendants’ debt and were admitted as Exhibit 1 during the trial.
The invoices provide in
relevant part, “In the event of any action or proceeding to collect monies due
here under or to enforce or interpret any of the terms hereof the prevailing
party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s and collection fees.” Declaration
of Russell Behjatnia ¶ 2, Ex. 1.
Under section 1717, “the court
is given wide discretion in determining which party has prevailed on its
cause(s) of action. Such a determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent
a clear abuse of discretion.” Smith v. Krueger (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d
752, 756-757. In determining which party, if any, is the prevailing party,
courts use “a pragmatic definition of the extent to which each party has
realized its litigation objectives, whether by judgment, settlement, or
otherwise.” Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 622. A party that obtains an “unqualified victory” is
the prevailing party, and the trial court has no discretion to deny that party
attorney fees. Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 877.
Here, the Court found in Plaintiff’s favor and entered a
judgment against Defendants for $72,442.55 in damages. Accordingly, the Court
finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party.
II. Reasonable Attorney’s Fees
“A trial court assessing attorney fees
begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation
of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ...
involved in the presentation of the case.’” Christian Research Institute v.
Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321 (quoting Ketchum v. Moses
(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131–1132). The lodestar figure may then be adjusted,
based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee
at the fair market value for the legal services provided. See Serrano v.
Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 (discussing factors relevant to proper
attorneys’ fees award). The factors considered in determining the modification
of the lodestar include “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which
the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4)
the contingent nature of the fee award.” Mountjoy v. Bank of Am. (2016)
245 Cal.App.4th 266, 271.
Here, Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees in the amount of
$88,725.00, reflecting 253.5 hours at a rate of $350 dollars an hour. The Court
finds this requested rate reasonable. Based on the Court's own experience and
review of the file in this matter, except for the time requested for preparing
the fee motion, the Court finds the hours spent reasonable. However, Plaintiff’s
counsel bills 6.3 hours for work on the Motion for Attorney’s fees. This is
excessive for such a simple fee motion. The Court assumes this includes
anticipated time spent replying to an opposition and attending the hearing. As Defendants
failed to file an opposition the Court reduces the requested hours by 3.3 hours.
Accordingly, the motion is granted in the reduced amount of $87,570.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees is granted in the
reduced amount of $87,570.