Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV09201, Date: 2024-12-13 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: 22STCV09201 Hearing Date: December 13, 2024 Dept: 52
Defendant
Megna T Shirt Manufacturing Company, Inc.’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on
Appeal
Defendant
Megna T Shirt Manufacturing Company, Inc. moves for $57,675 in attorney fees
incurred on appeal. It is undisputed that the parties’ lease
agreement provides for attorney fees to the prevailing party and that defendant
prevailed on the appeal by plaintiff/appellant T-A Fashion (USA), LLC.
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.)
For
attorney Ben Gharagozli, defendant incurred 49.0 hours of fees at $500
hourly. (Gharagozli Decl., ¶¶ 4, 11.) For attorney Kevin Hermansen, defendant incurred
27.9 hours of fees at $500 hourly.
(Hermansen Decl., ¶¶ 7, 20.)
Hours
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.) “Reasonable
compensation does not include compensation for padding in the form of
inefficient or duplicative efforts.” (Morris
v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 38.) “In challenging attorney fees as excessive
because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging
party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and
citations to the evidence. General
arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not
suffice.” (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc v. California Ins.
Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)
Nearly
all hours of work claimed were reasonable and necessary. A total of 76.9 hours worked from November
2022 to December 2024 on an appeal demonstrates substantial efficiency.
Hermansen
billed excessive time communicating with the court reporter and staff at the
Court of Appeal. His work from December
9, 2022, to August 9, 2023, includes several tasks that did not warrant using an
attorney with 15 years of experience who charges $500 hourly. Hermansen billed 1.1 hours on May 2, 2023, to
call the Court of Appeal filing room and travel to the filing room to ask about
providing a transcript. (Hermansen
Decl., ¶ 20.) On June 4, 2023, Hermansen
billed another 0.2 hours for a similar task, plus 0.6 hours communicating with
the court reporter and her office. He
then billed a total of 0.8 hours to communicate with the court reporter from
June 23 to August 15, 2023. Though this
work was necessary, it could have been done by a legal assistant or paralegal. For these 2.7 hours of work, the court will
therefore award Hermansen a rate of $200 per hour.
The
court finds all 49 hours billed by Gharagozli were reasonable and necessary. Plaintiff contends the 5.9 hours billed for reviewing
and researching authority cited in the appellant’s opening brief was excessive
or duplicative. The court finds insufficient
evidence to reach that conclusion.
Reviewing the appellant’s brief and researching authority cited therein
while preparing the respondent’s brief is an important and sometimes complex
task. Plaintiff also argues Gharagozli
spent an excessive 15.5 hours preparing for oral argument after reviewing the
favorable tentative ruling on July 11, 2024.
Despite a favorable tentative ruling, it was prudent to thoroughly prepare
for oral argument. Moreover, those 15.5
hours include the time traveling to and attending the oral argument on July 17,
2024, which was necessary.
Hourly
Rates
Defendant’s
counsel’s hourly rates of $500 for both Gharagozli and Hermansen are
reasonable. 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.) Ben Gharagozli has practiced law since 2010
and has worked on at least three successful appeals in unlawful detainer cases. (Gharagozli Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.) Kevin Hermansen has practiced law since 2009
and has substantial experience in unlawful detainer cases and other civil
actions. (Hermansen Decl., ¶¶ 3-7.) The rate of $500 hourly represents the
reasonable market value of services by Gharagozli and Hermansen.
But, as discussed above, Hermansen
billed 2.7 hours for tasks that could have been done by someone with less
experience and skill and a lower hourly rate.
The court will award Hermansen 25.2 hours at $500 hourly and 2.7 hours
at $200 hourly. After this reduction, defendant’s
lodestar totals $37,640 (49 hours x $500 hourly + 25.2 hours x $500 hourly +
2.7 hours x $200 hourly).
Lodestar
Enhancement
Defendant moves for a 1.5 enhancement to the
lodestar. Multipliers may be awarded based on factors
including “(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 v.
Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 (Ketchum).)
After considering all relevant factors,
the court exercises its discretion to award a 1.2 enhancement to defendant’s
lodestar. The contingent nature of the
award justifies an enhancement. “[T]he
purpose of a fee enhancement is primarily to compensate the attorney for the
prevailing party at a rate reflecting the risk of nonpayment in contingency
cases as a class.” (Ketchum, supra,
24 Cal.4th at p. 1138.) Defendant’s
counsel worked on the appeal on contingency and had to advance the costs
incurred. (Hermansen Decl., ¶ 22;
Gharagozli Decl., ¶ 13.) Defendant’s
counsel’s work was skillful and successful.
On the other hand, the appeal did not
involve novel or difficult questions and did not substantially preclude other
work by defendant’s counsel. Over two
years, they spent a total of 76.9 hours on the appeal. They had ample time to work on other cases. Defendant’s counsel argue the delay in
payment justifies an enhancement. But
hardly any of their 76.9 hours of work was done before March of this year. The delay is minimal. Finally, defendant’s counsel argue their
civility and opposing counsel’s lack of civility warrants a multiplier. The 1.2 multiplier adequately accounts for
this factor.
After a 1.2 multiplier to the lodestar of $37,640,
defendant may recover a total of $45,168 in attorney fees.
Disposition
Defendant Megna T Shirt Manufacturing
Company, Inc.’s motion for attorney fees on appeal is granted in part.
Defendant
Megna T Shirt Manufacturing Company, Inc. shall recover $45,168 in appellate attorney
fees from plaintiff T-A Fashion (USA), LLC.