Judge: Andre De La Cruz, Case: 2021-01229370, Date: 2023-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Pinecrest Community Association on 3/21/23

Plaintiff Pinecrest Community Association’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $10,000. Costs in the amount of $1307.91 are awarded. Both awards are made against Scott Shimane and Linda Shimane jointly and severally.

To recover attorneys’ fees, a prevailing party bears the burden of demonstrating that the fees were: (1) allowable; (2) reasonably necessary to conduct the litigation; and (3) reasonable in amount. See Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 998 (2009). The lodestar method is applicable to calculating attorneys’ fees under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Id. at 997. An experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his or her court. Id. The court’s analysis begins with the 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.” Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 48 (1977). “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095 (2000) (citation omitted). A reasonable hourly rate reflects the skill and experience of the lawyer, including any relevant areas of particular expertise and the nature of the work performed. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-434 (1983). The reasonable market value of the attorney’s services is the measure of a reasonable hourly rate. This standard applies regardless of whether the attorneys claiming fees charge nothing for their services, charge at below-market or discounted rates, represented the client on a straight contingent fee basis, or are in house counsel. PLCM Group v. Drexler, supra, 22 Cal.4th at 1094.

To determine reasonable attorneys’ fees, the court should consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and employed in handling the matter, the attention given, the success of the attorney’s efforts, the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed. Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal. App. 4th 628, 659 (1996).

As to the reasonableness of the hours, “trial courts must carefully review attorney documentation of hours expended; ‘padding’ in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation.” Ketchum v. Moses, supra, 24 Cal. 4th at 1132. “[A]ny failure to maintain appropriate time records sufficient to provide a basis for determining how much time was spent on particular claims” properly permits reduction of the award. Christian Research Institute v. Alnor, 165 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1320 (2008). “In determining a fee’s reasonableness, the court may also consider whether the motion itself is reasonable, both in terms of (1) the amount of fees requested and (2) the credibility of the supporting evidence.” Guillory v. Hill, 36 Cal. App. 5th 802, 811 (2019). The court may make a downward adjustment if the billing entries are vague, “blockbilled,” or unnecessary. 569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc., 6 Cal. App. 5th 426, 441 (2016).

The court finds that a downward adjustment is appropriate for inefficiency, excessive billing entries, vague billing entries, blockbilling and padding.   

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to prepare an amended Order for the Court’s signature.

The clerk of the court is to give notice.