Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV23550, Date: 2023-11-01 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: 21STCV23550    Hearing Date: November 1, 2023    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings

On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff Hsiao An Chen sued a number of Defendants—Desilu Studios Inc., Desilu Corporation, Charles B. Hensley, Citrus Realty Inc., Albert Rodriguez, TV Smart Pay Limited LLC, George Y. Zhang, Lucy X. Gao, Quang Lam, Nguyen Kim Anh Thi, Johnthony Lam, Linhda Lam, H.L. Group, George Hsu, all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the Complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon Plaintiff’s title thereto, and Does 1-11—pursuant to a Complaint alleging claims of (1) Breach of Written Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Civil Theft, (4) Quiet Title, (5) Avoidable Transfer, (6) Constructive Fraud, and (7) Financial Elder Abuse.

The claims arose from allegations that, among other things, Defendant Charles B. Hensley deceived Plaintiff and other co-owners into transferring titles of two plots of land—11768 and 11920 Brockman Ave., Adelanto, California 92310 (Subject Properties)—to Defendants Desilu Studios, Inc., and Desilu Corporation, for no consideration in return.

On January 26, 2022, Defendants Citrus Realty Inc. and Albert Rodriguez sued Defendant Desilu Studios Inc. and Hensley, as well as Roes 1-10, pursuant to a Cross-Complaint alleging claims of Declaratory Relief and Comparative Indemnity.

Relevant Procedural History, Complaint

On November 19, 2021, Plaintiff secured an entry of default against Defendants Desilu Studios Inc., Johnthony Lam, and Linhda Lam.

On December 20, 2021, Plaintiff secured an entry of default against Defendant Hensley.

On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff secured an entry of default against Defendants George Y. Zhang, Lucy X. Gao, and George Hsu.

On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the Complaint as alleged against Defendants Quang Lam and Nguyen Kim Anh Thi.

On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff secured an entry of default against Defendant TV Smartpay Limited LLC.

On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff secured an entry of default against Defendant Desilu Corporation.

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the Complaint as alleged against Defendants Citrus Realty Inc. and Albert Rodriguez.

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff secured an entry of default against Defendant H.L. Group.

On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed the Complaint’s first, second, and fifth causes of action as alleged against Defendants George Y. Zhang, Lucy X. Gao, Johnthony Lam, Linhda Lam, H.L. Group, and George Hsu, leaving the fourth cause of action as the sole operative cause of action against these Defendants. In the same request, Plaintiff dismissed the sixth cause of action, the entire Complaint as alleged against Does 1-11, and the entire Complaint as alleged against all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the Complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon Plaintiff’s title thereto.

On December 9, 2022, the Court severed the fourth cause of action for quiet title from the remaining six causes of action and entered default judgment against Defendants Desilu Studios Inc., Desilu Corporation, Charles B. Hensley, and TV Smart Pay Limited LLC on the first, second, third, fifth, and seventh causes of action, i.e., the remaining claims alleged against these Defendants. The Court entered judgment in the amount of $951,523.46 and the Clerk effected notice of the judgment that same day. The Court also again dismissed Defendants Citrus Realty Inc. and Albert Rodriguez, and set several hearings for April 21, 2023, including an Order to Show Cause (OSC) re Failure to File Proof of Service (POS) relating to Defendants Citrus Realty Inc. and Albert Rodriguez and a Default Prove Up Hearing for April 21, 2023.

On March 7, 2023, the Court issued a notice of continuance for the OSC re POS and Default Prove Up Hearing to June 28, 2023.

On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a trial brief, proposed judgment, and other documents in support of quiet title on the Subject Properties.

On June 28, 2023, the Court held the OSC re POS, the Default Prove Up Hearing, and a trial in this action. The Court found in favor of Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to file a revised proposed default judgment for the Court’s review and signature. The Court set an OSC re Entry of Judgment for August 3, 2023.

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a proposed judgment for quiet title, amendment of the December 9, 2022 judgment, and fees and costs.

On August 3, 2023, the Court held an OSC re Entry of Judgment. At that time, by agreement with Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court struck down the default judgment filed by Plaintiff Chen on December 9, 2022 (with the Court clarifying the strike order in the August 7, 2023 judgment summarized below). The Court also informed Plaintiff’s counsel that a request for fees could be brought as a noticed motion.

On August 7, 2023, the Court entered the judgment for quiet title in favor of Plaintiff against all Defendants except for Doe Defendants—i.e., against Defendants Desilu Studios Inc., Desilu Corporation, Charles B. Hensley, Citrus Realty Inc., Albert Rodriguez, TV Smart Pay Limited LLC, George Y. Zhang, Lucy X. Gao, Quang Lam, Nguyen Kim Anh Thi, Johnthony Lam, Linhda Lam, H.L. Group, George Hsu, and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the Complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon Plaintiff’s title thereto. The judgment includes a provision amending the December 9, 2022 judgment to strike compensatory damages in the amount of $951,523.46, as well as a provision that Plaintiff would be awarded costs of suit, including attorney’s fees, upon a cost and bill motion.

One correction to the record may be in order. The 8/3/23 minutes imply that the Court struck the 12/9/22 judgment in its entirety, whereas the 8/7/23 judgment amends the 12/9/22 judgment only to strike compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff Chen. The Court will issue a nunc pro tunc order to the 8/3/23 minutes clarifying that the “strike” contemplated in the 8/3/23 minutes was limited to striking compensatory damages from the 12/9/22 judgment and did not strike the 12/9/22 judgment in its entirety.

On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff Chen noticed entry of judgment in this action.

Motion(s) Before the Court

That same day, Plaintiff Chen filed a memorandum of costs.

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiff Chen filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

Defendants have failed to oppose the memorandum of costs and the motion for attorney’s fees and costs, which are now before the Court.

Motion for Attorney’s 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).) “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (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 Attorney’s Fees and Costs: GRANTED, in Part.

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees of $23,325.50 and costs of $2,646.50 as the prevailing party in this action. (Mot., Notice, p. 2 [seeking these amounts pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1717]; see also 9/25/23 Memo of Costs [breaking down costs].)

The fees are premised on an attorney’s fees clause in paragraph 31 of the Purchase Agreement for the Subject Properties and are sought against Defendants Desilu Studios Inc., Desilu Corporation, Charles B. Hensley, TV Smart Pay Limited LLC, George Y. Zhang, Lucy X. Gao, Johnthony Lam, Linhda Lam, H.L. Group, and George Hsu. (Mot., Ex. A, Complaint, Sub-Ex. A, Purchase Agreement, § 31; Mot., Notice, p. 2 & Mot., Proposed Order [Defendants against whom fees are sought listed]; Mot., pp. 6-7 [points and authorities setting out contractual basis for fees].)

Defendants have failed to oppose this motion, lending merit to it. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342 [“The failure of the opposing party to serve and file a written opposition may be construed by the court as an admission that the motion is meritorious, and the court may grant the motion without a hearing on the merits”]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [“The rule [inferring merit in unopposed motions] seems to apply only when a party has not filed any written opposition”].)

I. Reasonable Fees

Plaintiff seeks billing rates of $400 per hour for Robert S. Altagen, $400 per hour for Michael Allison, and $200 per hour for legal staff employee Chailing Fung. These rates are supported by the arguments in the points and authorities. The rates are also supported, in part, by a declaration from Robert S. Altagen, which does not include an academic and professional background for counsel and legal staff. (Mot., pp. 9-10; Mot., Altagen Decl., ¶¶ 1-21.)

A State Bar of California search of Robert S. Altagen shows that he was admitted to the State Bar in 1973, while a search of Michael Allisson on the State Bar website shows that he was licensed in 1991, with his license most recently reactivated in October 2022. (State Bar of California, Attorney Profile (2023) <https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/56444 & https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/155211> [as of Nov. 1, 2023].)

Defendants have failed to oppose Plaintiff’s motion.

Based on its experience with reasonable rates in the Los Angeles market, the Court finds that a rate of $400 for two 30-plus year practitioners is reasonable, as is the rate of $200 per hour for Plaintiff’s counsel’s legal staff.

II. Reasonable Hours

Plaintiff seeks recovery for 77.85 hours expended by counsel on this action, as broken down in verified time records attached to the Altagen declaration. (Mot., pp. 8-9; Mot., Altagen Decl., Ex. E [verified billing records showing 97.85 hours total work expended by counsel, with 20 of those hours pertaining to costs as opposed to legal services, total fees and costs of $27,999—$25,720 in fees and $2,279 in costs—and a $10,000 deposit against the total fees and costs].)

Defendants have failed to oppose Plaintiff’s motion.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably expended 77.85 hours in this action up to attendance at this hearing. The verified billing records are sufficiently clear as to how counsel expended these hours. (Mot., Altagen Decl., Ex. E.) Moreover, the records are entitled to deference. (See Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 397 [“[T]rial court abused its discretion in rejecting wholesale counsels’ verified time records” where “verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous”].)

Plaintiff Chen’s motion is thus GRANTED as to fees in the amount of $23,325.50, i.e., an amount less than the $25,720 in fees shown in the verified billing records.

III. Multiplier Enhancement

No multiplier enhancement award is sought by Plaintiff. (See Mot., pp. 8-10.)

IV. Costs

Plaintiff seeks $2,646.50 in costs related to this action. (9/25/23 Memo of Costs, MC-010, p. 1; see also Mot., Altagen Decl., Ex. D [same].) However, the Court notes that the memo of costs twice seeks to recover for service of process on Charles B. Hensley and twice seeks to recover a private investigator fee related to Charles B. Hensley. (Compare 9/25/23 Memo of Costs, MC-011, § 5, with 9/25/23 Memo of Costs, MC-025, p. 1.) The Court thus reduces the costs request by $425 based on duplicate costs related to Charles B. Hensley. The Court also adds the $60 cost related to filing the attorney’s fees motion, which was not included in the memo of costs, but is included in the verified billing records. (Compare 9/25/23 Memo of Costs, with Mot., Altagen Decl., Ex. E [verified billing record containing same costs as 9/25/23 memo of costs with two differences: (1) memo of costs seeks $122.50 for service on Lucy X. Gao, whereas billing records reflect $120 for service on “Lucy Zhang”; and (2) billing records contain $60 cost of filing this motion, which memo of costs does not include].)

Costs are thus GRANTED in the amount of $2,281.50. (See also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700, subd. (b)(4).) 

Conclusion

Plaintiff Hsiao An Chen’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED, in Part, in the amount of $25,607, comprised of $23,325.50 in reasonable fees and $2,281.50 in reasonable costs.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to submit an Amended Judgment including this award of fees and costs. The Court will set an OSC re: Amended Judgment and if the Amended Judgment is entered before that date, no appearance will be needed.

Finally, the Court will set an OSC re: dismissal of the Cross-Complaint on the same day. It appears to this Court that such Cross-Complaint was rendered moot insofar as Plaintiff dismissed Defendants/Cross-Complainants Citrus Realty and Albert Rodriguez on 9/7/22 and the Court dismissed the same Defendants/Cross-Complainants on 12/9/22. Thus, Citrus Realty Inc. and Albert Rodriguez face no liability on the Complaint, then the Cross-Complaint’s claims for declaratory relief and comparative indemnity are mooted. If no objection is filed prior to the date of that OSC, the Court will dismiss the Cross-Complaint and the matter will be deemed completed that date.