Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCP02232, Date: 2024-10-11 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: 24STCP02232    Hearing Date: October 11, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

    Petitioner So Cal Development Group filed a Petition for Release of Mechanic’s Lien against Respondent California Realty & Investment Group Inc. on July 15, 2024. The Court granted the Petition on August 21, 2024. (Minute Order, 08/21/24.) Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was filed on August 21, 2024.

     On August 21, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant motion for Entry of Judgment for Attorney Fees and Costs.

     No opposition has been filed.

II. Motion

A.    Legal Standard

The Court’s objective is to award attorney fees at the fair market value based on the particular action.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “‘[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . .’” (Ketchum v. Moses¿(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.”¿¿(PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

Regarding the number of hours expended, the lodestar method looks to factors relevant to the particular case: “(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.”  (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1132.) “The ‘‘experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’’” (Ibid.)

2. Analysis 

Petitioner moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $7,567.27 pursuant to Civil Code section 8488. As the prevailing party on the Petition to Release Mechanic’s Lien, Petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (c).)  

Petitioner’s counsel has been practicing law for 20 years and bills at a rate of $500.00 per hour. (Weisberg Decl., ¶¶ 4,7.) The declaration adequately supports the requested rate based on counsel’s experience and years of practice.  

Petitioner requests attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $7,567.27 based upon counsel’s rate of $500/hour for: (1) 12.9 hours of work on the Petition to Release Mechanic’s Lien and (2) 1.0 hour for hearing on the motion for attorney’s fees, and (3) $617.27 in costs. (Weisberg Decl., ¶¶ 4-6, Ex. 1; Memorandum of Costs).

Details regarding this work demonstrate that counsel did not duplicate any efforts or spend an excessive amount of time on any task. (Weisberg Decl., Ex. 1.)

Thus, Petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $7,567.27 is GRANTED.

III. Conclusion

So Cal Development Group’s Motion for Entry of Judgment for Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $7,567.27. The Proposed Judgment lodged on August 21, 2024, will be signed.