Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 20STCV43065, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 20STCV43065    Hearing Date: February 23, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Procedural History, Costs, and Fees

On October 10, 2020, Plaintiff Finnegan’s Wake initiated this action by filing a Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Money Had and Received against Defendants Hero Mountain, LLC and Does 1 through 20.

On September 15, 2023, trial was held in this action.

On September 19, 2023, the Court issued its ruling after bench trial. In relevant part, the Court found in favor of Defendant Hero Mountain on both causes of action and held that Defendant was entitled to retain the $200,000 in liquidated damages. The Court also determined that, as the prevailing party, Defendant Hero Mountain should submit a proposed judgment within 10 court days and could file a motion for attorney fees within the statutory time period.

On October 3, 2023, the Court entered judgment, which ordered, adjudged, and decreed that (1) Finnegan’s Wake take nothing from Defendant on the complaint and (2) Hero Mountain is the prevailing party entitled to costs and disbursements, including attorney’s fees, in an amount to be determined per motion.

That same day, the Clerk gave notice of entry of judgment.

On October 11, 2023, Hero Mountain filed a memorandum of costs.

That same day, Finnegan’s Wake filed a motion for attorneys’ fees.

On November 22, 2023, Finnegan’s Wake appealed the judgment.

On February 9, 2023, Finnegan’s Wake filed an “opposition” to Hero Mountain’s motion. This opposition does not dispute whether Hero Mountain incurred $130,000 in legal expenses in this action but simply highlights that Finnegan’s Wake has appealed the judgment, contesting whether Hero Mountain actually prevailed in this action.

No motion to strike or tax the October 11, 2023 memorandum appears in the record.

Neither does a reply to the February 9, 2024 opposition appear in the record.

Defendant Hero Mountain’s motion is now before the Court.

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Legal Standard

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subds. (a)(4), (b).) Attorney’s fees are also recoverable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded where a contract between the parties at issue specifically provides for such fees and costs and one party prevails over the other on the contract. (See Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).)

The Court begins this inquiry “with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) From there, the “lodestar figure may then be adjusted [according to a multiplier enhancement] 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.” (Ibid.) Relevant multiplier factors 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, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

No specific findings reflecting the court’s calculations for attorney’s fees are required; the record need only show that the attorney’s fees were awarded according to the “lodestar” or “touchstone” approach. (Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1344, 1349, disagreed with on other grounds in In re Marriage of Demblewski (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 232, 236, fn. 7 [disagreement as to statement of decision requirements].) The Court has broad discretion to determine the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award, which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393-1394.)

Order Granting Attorneys’ Fees: GRANTED.

In its motion, Defendant Hero Mountain seeks $130,000 in attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party in this action, and based on (1) Code of Civil Procedure section 1717, (2) a contract between the parties containing a clause entitling the prevailing party in a lawsuit between the parties to fees, and (3) a stipulation executed by the parties setting the maximum amount of recoverable fees at $130,000. (See Mot., p. 2.)

The motion is supported by a declaration from counsel, which details the contractual basis for fees, the accuracy of the time records attached to the declaration, counsel’s own personal experience as a litigator, and counsel’s knowledge of reasonable fee rates in the Los Angeles area as supportive of the requested fee rates. The declaration attaches copies of the September 19, 2023 ruling, the October 3, 2023 judgment, the parties’ contract, which contains a fees provision, counsel’s verified billing records, the curriculum vitae for the declarant, and a copy of the Laffey Matrix. (Mot., Rohatiner Decl., ¶¶ 1-14, Exs. A-F.)

Finnegan’s Wake’s opposition does not oppose Hero Mountain’s request on the merits, merely noting that Finnegan’s Wake has appealed the judgment itself and thus disputes whether Hero Mountain is the prevailing party. (Opp’n, pp. 1-2.)

The Court finds that the $130,000 sought in fees are reasonable.

The Court is considered “an expert in the matter of attorney fees” since “[t]he value of attorney’s services is a matter with which a judge must necessarily be familiar.” (Excelsior Union High Sch. Dist. of L.A. Cnty. v. Lautrup (1969) 269 Cal.App.2d 434, 448.) Accordingly, “[w]hen the court is informed of the extent and nature of such services, its own experience furnishes it with every element necessary to fix their value.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff is the prevailing party entitled to fees by contract. (Mot., Rohatiner, Ex. C, ¶ 34; 10/3/23 Judgment.)

The moving papers summarize the fee rate ranges billed by Hero Mountain’s counsel during counsel’s defense of this action. (Mot., p. 8.) The motion also attaches a copy of the verified billing records of Hero Mountain’s counsel. (Mot., Rohatiner, Ex. D.) A review of those records shows that rates for paralegals were kept at $200 per hour and rates for attorneys were kept between $350 per hour to $675 per hour for counsel Marc Rohatiner. (Mot., Rohatiner, Ex. D.) The Court determines that Marc Rohatiner’s years of experience and the general ranges provided by the Laffey Matrix support the fee rates requested by Hero Mountain.

Moreover, the Court determines that the 262.50 hours billed by counsel in relation to this action are reasonable (1) based on the more than three years of litigation and (2) based on a comparison of the time expended on the individual tasks listed in the verified billing records and a description of the tasks on which the time was expended. (Mot., Rohatiner, Ex. D.)

The Court notes that the billing records show legal expenses of $153,464.32, well within the range of the parties’ stipulated maximum of $130,000 in fees.

Finally, a pending appeal does not limit the trial court’s jurisdiction to award fees. (Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4^th 365, 368-369 [“Contrary to Bankes’s argument, the filing of a notice of appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to award attorney fees as costs post trial. Although a prevailing party may not be the prevailing party after an appeal, it has been held that a motion for attorney fees is not premature despite the filing of a notice of appeal”].)

Defendant Hero Mountain’s motion is thus GRANTED.

Conclusion

I.

Defendant Hero Mountain, LLC’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED.

Defendant Hero Mountain, LLC SHALL file an amended proposed Judgment incorporating this order within 10 days.

II.

Because Plaintiff Finnegan’s Wake, LP has not filed any motion to strike or tax Defendant Hero Mountain, LLC’s timely-filed memorandum of costs, Finnegan’s Wake has waived that right, and the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter the costs requested by Defendant Hero Mountain, LLC on October 11, 2023. (10/3/23 Judgment; 10/3/23 Notice of Entry of Judgment; 10/11/23 Memo of Costs [served via email]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (a)(1) [must, in relevant part, file costs memorandum within 15 days of clerk’s notice of entry of judgment]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(1) [must file motion to strike or tax costs within 15 days of service plus two extra court days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6]; (Griffith v. Wellbanks & Co. (1915) 26 Cal.App. 477, 480 [“In other words, the terms of [Code of Civil Procedure section 1033] are mandatory, and a substantially strict compliance therewith is required, not alone of the party claiming costs, but also of the party dissatisfied with the costs claimed,” emphasis added]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(4) [clerk’s ability to enter costs if no timely motion to strike or tax is made].)