Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV26225, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV26225    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Ryuman vs. Pak, et. al., Case No. 20STCV26225

Tentative Ruling re:  Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Defendant Joy Shin Hee Pak, joined by Defendants Hope Pak and Helen Pak (collectively, Defendants) move for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The motion is granted. The Court awards attorney’s fees to Defendants in the amount of $31,275, and costs in the amount of $4,589.50.

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032, subd. (b).) “Prevailing party” includes the party with a net monetary recovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) “[A]s a general rule, attorney fees are not recoverable as costs unless they are authorized by statute or agreement.” (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 424, 429.) “

The attorney bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(5).) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) “Testimony of an attorney as to the number of hours worked on a particular case is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records.” (Ibid.)  “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.” (Lunada  Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488.)

Following bench trial, the Court entered Judgment for Defendants on November 15, 2022. The parties’ Real Estate Agreement provides, “In any action, proceeding, or arbitration between Buyer and Seller arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Buyer or Seller shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs from the non-prevailing Buyer or Seller, except as provided in paragraph 22A.” (Reply, Ex. A, p. 9 ¶ 25.) Defendants are thus entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party. (Civ. Code § 1717.)

            Defendants request attorney’s fees in the amount of $31,275, for 69.50 hours billed by counsel, at an hourly rate of $450. (Cucher Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) The Court finds that the requested rate is “within the range of reasonable rates charged by and judicially awarded comparable attorneys for comparable work.” (Children’s Hospital & Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 783.) While Plaintiff asserts that this rate is excessive, Plaintiff presents no evidence or substantive argument disputing its reasonableness.

            Regarding the number of hours worked, Plaintiff challenges entries related to a “TRO filed by David Ryuman against 4-Paks,” from January 12 through January 19, 2021, totaling 11.50 hours. (Cucher Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff argues that these entries relate to a different case, because “4-Paks” is not a party to this action. (Mann Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendants’ counsel clarifies that “4-Paks” refers to the four members of the Pak family, and states that the TRO filed by Plaintiff concerned the same claims made in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Plaintiff has not challenged any other billing entries. While Plaintiff argues that defense counsel expended an excessive amount of time on the motion for summary judgment and demurrer, “[g]eneral arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Lunada Biomedical, 230 Cal.App.4th at 488.) Accordingly, the Court declines to reduce the hours requested and awards fees to Defendants in the amount of $31,275.

Defendants also seek an award of costs in the amount of $4,589.50, for filing and motion fees, deposition costs, and interpreter fees. (Memorandum of Costs, 10/28/22.) Plaintiff does not challenge these costs, and so the Court awards the requested amount.