Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 20STCV02781, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 20STCV02781    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant Western Waterproofing Company, Inc.’s Motion for an Award of Attorney Fees

Defendant Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. moves for $26,257.50 in attorney fees.  In its reply, it seeks $26,564.50 after adding another $385 for the reply and cutting $78 for erroneous charges.

In determining what constitutes a reasonable fee, the court ordinarily begins with the lodestar, that is, “the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)   In calculating the lodestar, the court must determine whether the tasks performed by an attorney were necessary and whether the amount of time billed for each task was reasonable.  (Baxter v. Bock (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 775, 793.) 

Hourly Rates

Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rates of no more than $175 are reasonable and below the market value of the services they provided.

Hours

            Defendant seeks fees for 153.4 hours of work.  The hours are on the high end of the spectrum, but in the court’s experience, not excessive. 

            Plaintiff 5th and LA, a Joint Venture argues defendant cannot recover fees incurred that were not specifically related to the appeal.  The parties’ contract provides, “In the event of any legal action to enforce the terms of this Contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees from the other.”  (Lucas Decl., Ex. A, p. 5, ¶ 11.)  The recoverable fees are not limited to those for the appeal.  Defendant seeks only fees not previously recovered in its initial motion for attorney fees.

Plaintiff also argues defendant cannot recover fees for communications with Western Waterproofing Company, Inc.’s insurance carrier.  Plaintiff provides no authority in support of that proposition.  Unless there is a conflict of interest, there is a “‘triangular’ ” attorney-client relationship “between an insurance company and the counsel it hires to defend an insured.”  (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)  “[T]he attorney has a dual attorney-client relationship with insurer and insured.”  (Id. at p. 1429.)  The court finds all entries for communicating with defendant’s insurance carrier were reasonable and necessary.  These communications were a necessary part of representing defendant’s interests in this action.

Disposition

Defendant Western Waterproofing Company, Inc.’s motion for attorney fees is granted.  Defendant Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. shall recover $26,564.50 in attorney fees from plaintiff 5th & LA, A Joint Venture.