Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV09283, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09283    Hearing Date: November 6, 2024    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

NextGear Capital, Inc. v. Whittington Motor Sports, Inc., et. al., Case No. 23STCV09283 

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

NextGear Capital, Inc. (Plaintiff) moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $32,783.00 and costs in the amount of $2,572.10 against Whittington Motor Sports, Inc. (Defendant). The motion is granted.

“[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.) 

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to California Rules of Court 3.1700 and 3.1702 on the basis that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action. The California Rules of Court are not a statute or agreement which can be properly used to justify the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs. However, Plaintiff argues that as the prevailing party in a contract action they are entitled to seek attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717.

“In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) The court may determine fees pursuant to the section upon notice and motion by a party. The party prevailing on the contract is that “who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” (Id., § 1717, subd. (b)(1).) The court may also determine that there is no prevailing party.

The attorney bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (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.) A plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) “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.)

In determining whether the requested attorney’s fees are “reasonable,” the Court’s “first step involves the lodestar figure—a calculation based on the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the lawyer’s hourly rate. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of facts specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2008) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 92.) In determining whether to adjust the lodestar figure, the Court may consider the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount of money involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (EnPalm LLC v. Teitler (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774.)

Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $32,783.00 and costs in the amount of $2,572.10 against Defendant. The contract in question includes a provision requiring Defendant to pay legal fees incurred by Plaintiff from any event of default. (Brown Decl. Ex. 1. ¶ 18 [filed October 4, 2023].) On June 26, 2024, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Whittington Motor Sports, Inc. and RD William Whittington as to all causes of action. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party and entitled to attorney’s fees under section 1717.

Reasonableness of Rates 

            Requested rates are reasonable if they are “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.) The Court may consider the sworn declarations of Plaintiff’s attorneys regarding their customary fees, hourly rate determinations in other cases, and the prevailing fees in the community as evidence of the reasonable market rate. (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.) 

The Court finds that the rate of $350 per hour requested by Plaintiff’s counsel, is within the range of reasonable rates by comparable attorneys for comparable work. (Normandin Decl. ¶6.)

Reasonableness of Hours 

            Plaintiff submits evidence showing 99.6 hours billed over the course of litigation. (Id. ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) At a rate of $350 per hour, this would amount to $34,860 in attorney’s fees.  Plaintiff instead requests $32,783 in fees, likely due to some work being performed by others with lower hourly rates. With no opposition filed, the Court declines to award the anticipated $1,500 in costs associated with a reply.

The Court finds that 99.60 hours of billable work is a reasonable amount of time spent to draft the complaint, communicate with the client, file a motion for summary, judgment and conduct discovery. (Id.) Accordingly, The Court grants Plaintiff an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $32,783.00.

Costs

            Plaintiff seeks to recover $2,572.10 in litigation costs. These Costs include filing fees and service of process fees. (Id., ¶¶ 1 and 5.) Additionally, Plaintiff has provided a separate memorandum of costs for attorney’s fees and costs associated with the underlying complaint. (Normandin ¶ 4.) These costs are all associated with Plaintiff successfully suing Defendants. This motion is unopposed.

The Court finds these costs reasonable and grants $2,572.10 in costs.