Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV28570, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28570    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 52

Judgment Creditors Thomas Nash and Bo Kyung O’Connor’s Motion for Attorney Fees

            Judgment creditors Thomas Nash and Bo Kyung O’Connor move for an additional $48,157.50 in attorney fees incurred in enforcing the judgment against judgment debtor Ninon Aprea.

            “Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under” the Enforcement of Judgments Law “if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.”  (CCP § 685.040.)  The Enforcement of Judgments Law “ ‘addresses in detail several means of enforcing a judgment, including liens on real and personal property (§§ 697.010-697.920), writs of execution (§§ 699.010-701.830), garnishment of wages (§§ 706.010-706.154) and writs of possession or sale (§§ 712.010-716.030)....’  [Citation.]  Each of these means of enforcing a judgment results, at least to some degree, in the satisfaction of the judgment.”  (Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 416, 426.)

Creditors claim $39,157.50 in attorney fees incurred for 14.9 hours at $675 hourly plus 38.8 hours at $750 hourly.  They also seek an anticipated $9,750 of fees for 10 hours at $675 hourly plus 4 hours at $750 hourly spent reviewing the opposition, drafting the reply, and preparing for and attending the hearing on this motion.  (Linzer Decl., ¶¶ 23-24.) 

Hourly Rates

            For hourly rates, “the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys.”  (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 436.)  Courts may rely on their “own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees, the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied, and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (Id. at p. 437, citations omitted.)

            The court finds creditors’ attorneys’ rates of $675 and $750 hourly reflect the reasonable market value of their services.

Number of Hours

            The court finds creditors did not reasonably incur all hours of fees they claim.  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.)  The moving party has the burden of proof on these issues.  (Ibid.) 

            Creditors did not reasonably incur all hours claimed for drafting this motion.  Across various entries dated October 22, 2023, to November 9, 2023, creditors billed 4.8 hours at $675 hourly and 5.3 hours at $750 hourly related to drafting this motion.  (Linzer Decl., Ex. O.)  This motion did not reasonably require 10.1 hours of work.  Not only is this motion relatively simple, but also creditors already successfully recovered postjudgment attorney fees in motions filed May 20, 2022, and September 13, 2022.  They did not need to reinvent the wheel.  The court will reduce these fees by 2.4 hours at $675 hourly and by 2.8 hours at $750 hourly, totaling $3,720. 

            The court will also reduce the fees creditors claimed for their anticipated work in reviewing the opposition, drafting the reply, and attending the hearing.  They claim a total of 10 hours at $675 hourly and 4 hours at $750 hourly.  (Linzer Decl., ¶¶ 23-24.)  Debtor’s opposition is just over three pages long.  These tasks did not reasonably require the fees creditors claim.  The court will reduce them by 7 hours at $675 hourly and by 3 hours at $750 hourly, totaling $6,975.

            Debtor’s opposition argues creditors’ bills include time spent on tasks not related to enforcing the judgment.  After reviewing the invoice from Linzer Law Group, P.C. (Linzer Decl., Ex. O), the court finds all entries were related to enforcing the judgment. 

            After reducing the lodestar by $10,695 as discussed above, creditors will recover $38,212.50 in attorney fees.

Disposition

The motion is granted in part.  The court hereby awards $38,212.50 in attorney fees to judgment creditors Thomas Nash and Bo Kyung O’Connor. 

The court will modify the proposed second amended judgment to reflect the reduced amount of attorney fees.