Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 22STCV38968, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV38968, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38968 Hearing Date: January 9, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Plaintiff for Attorney's Fees and Costs.

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.

On 12/15/22, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that self-represented defendants Ken Trimmer and Claudia Trimmer breached a written commercial lease of real property, by not paying rent due. The causes of action are: 1) Breach of the Lease Agreement; 2) Account Stated; and 3) Money Had and Received.

On 8/9/23, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, and entered judgment against Defendants.

In their motion before the Court, Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $11,391.25 and costs in the sum of $l ,250.00. Bases for those requests include: 1) Plaintiff is the prevailing party against Defendants because the Court filed a Judgment against Defendants; and 2) Plaintiff is entitled to recover its attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1032 and 1033.5, Rules 8.104 and 3.1702 of the California Rules of Court, and the prevailing party attorney’s fees provision in the subject lease agreement between the parties.

The failure to file a proper and timely opposition in trial court creates a waiver of the issues on any appeal. Bell v. Am. Title Ins. Co. (1991) 226 Cal. App. 3d 1589, 1602. A party appearing without a lawyer is not entitled to any greater privileges than an attorney. Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125-1126; Morgan v. Ransom (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 664, 669; Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193; Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1267.

“ ‘In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.’ ” Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488. Accord Etcheson v. FCA US LLC (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 831, 848. Parties opposing motions for attorneys' fees fail to show any abuse of discretion unless they file an opposition setting forth a specific analysis or factual support. E.g., Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 531, 545.

If items appear on their face to be proper, the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, shifting the burden of proof to the attacking party. Adams v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1475, 1486-87; Benach v. County of L. A. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 836, 855; Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal. App. 4th 111, 131-32 (“trial court erred in requiring additional proof from” the party claiming costs, where the party attacking costs had the burden); Santantonio v. Westinghouse Broad. Co. (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 102, 116, 121 (after a prima facie showing based on verified cost memorandum, objecting party has the burden to prove costs should be disallowed); Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773; Rappenecker v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc. (1979) 93 Cal. App. 3d 256, 266.

In this case, Defendants have not filed any opposition to meet their burden to challenge the attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that is it is entitled to fees pursuant to the fees provision in the lease agreement. The Court’s review of the declarations submitted by counsel demonstrate that the lodestar figure, i.e., the reasonable hours spent on the case (19.25) multiplied by the prevailing hourly rate for attorneys in the community is appropriate and reasonable. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s exhibit 8, which contains the billing statements for Plaintiff’s attorneys, is not attached to the motion. The Court directs Plaintiff to bring a copy of exhibit 8 to the hearing for the Court to review and confirm the information contained in the declarations regarding the work done on the case. Defendants have not challenged the requested costs and so those are also granted.