Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 20STCV21895, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Post-Judgment Attorney Fees and Costs is granted in a reduced amount.

This action arises from consumer protection violations. The Complaint, filed on June 10, 2020, alleges Defendant Great Supplies & Services, Inc. (GSS), which was doing business as a used-car dealership under the fictitious business name Ayla Motors, committed numerous violations of California consumer-protection laws in selling the subject 2016 Ford Mustang (Vehicle) to Plaintiff Fernando Flores in October 2019.

Thereafter, Defendant GSS moved to compel arbitration. On January 12, 2021, the Court granted the motion. In October 2022, the arbitrator issued an interim award including monetary relief in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant GSS; in December 2022, the arbitrator issued a final award that included prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. The following month, Plaintiff filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award, which GSS did not oppose. The Court entered judgment on February 15, 2023.

On January 11, 2024, Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor moved to amend the judgment to add Mehdi Omrani (Omrani), Kaladar Co., Inc. (Kaladar), and Luxury Auto Sales, Inc. (Luxury Auto) as judgment debtors pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 187. A late opposition was filed on March 22, 2024 by GSS. The motion was granted, and an amended judgment was filed on March 25, 2024.

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor now moves for attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $54,348.22. No opposition was filed.

Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 states, in part, “The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.” Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are expressly excluded unless otherwise provided by law. (Id.) “[W]hen a fee-shifting statute provides the substantive authority for an award of attorney fees, any such fees incurred in enforcement of the judgment are within the scope of section 685.040.” (Conservatorship of McQueen (2014) 59 Cal.4th 602, 614.)

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor now moves for attorney fees in the amount of $48,367.00 (plus an additional $1,092.00 in attorneys’ fees to review Judgment Debtors’ opposition, drafting the reply brief, and appearing for the hearing) and costs in the amount of $5,981.22.

In assessing the reasonableness of hourly billing rates,¿“the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees [citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied [citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.”¿(569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc.¿(2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437; see¿Mountjoy v. Bank of America, N.A.¿(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 272 [“ ‘ “a reasonable hourly rate is the product of a multiplicity of factors…[including] the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case” ’ ”].)¿

Here, Judgment Creditor’s counsel seeks Court approval of hourly rates of $715 for Christopher P. Barry, $635 for Gregory T. Babbitt, $390 for Michelle A. Cook, $320 for Kaden Byron, and $295 for Karla Gasca. (Mot., 1:15-19.) In failing to oppose the motion, Judgment Debtors do not challenge the reasonableness of Judgment Creditor’s counsels’ hourly rates.

Based on the Court’s familiarity with the current local market, and Judgment Creditor’s evidence of the experience and skills of their attorneys, and the non-complex nature of the litigation – the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ requested rates per hour must be reduced with respect to Attorney Barry and Babbitt’s hourly rates. The Court will reduce these rates to $600 for Christopher P. Barry and $535 for Gregory T. Babbitt.

The new weighted blended rate for Judgment Creditor’s attorneys is $440. The adjusted lodestar is $44,805.

Judgment Creditor also argues the number of hours incurred are reasonable. In support, Judgment Creditor submit its attorney billing records showing 101.7 hours over a two year period. (Barry Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)

Judgment Debtors – in failing to oppose this motion – do not challenge the reasonableness of the number of hours incurred for various tasks during this litigation. (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488 [“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. Failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal.”].) Further, in reviewing the hours incurred, the Court, on its own, has determined that the amounts do not appear excessive.

Thus, the hours incurred are reasonable and the motion is granted with respect to the attorney’s fees in the amount of is $44,103.[1]

With respect to the requested costs, Judgment Debtors failure to challenge the amounts means these costs “are allowed.” Section 685.070, subdivision (d), states that, “If no motion to tax costs is made within the time provided ... the costs claimed in the memorandum are allowed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070, subd. (d).) In essence, “[s]ection 685.070 provides that if the judgment creditor files a memorandum of costs and the judgment debtor does not timely file a motion to tax costs, then the court is required to allow all of the costs claimed in the memorandum of costs.” (David S. Karton, A Law Corp. v. Dougherty (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 133, 147 [italics added]; see also Briggs v. Elliott (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 683, 695 [citing Ahart, Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcing Judgments and Debts (The Rutter Group 2023) ¶ 6:51 [“If a timely motion to tax is not filed by the judgment debtor, enforcement costs claimed in the judgment creditor's Memorandum are automatically allowed and added to the judgment.” (italics added)]].)

Judgment Debtors are ordered to pay to Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor Fernando Flores’ counsel the sum of $44,805 for attorneys’ fees and $5,981.22 in post-judgment costs.

[1] Judgment Creditors “anticipates justifiably incurring an additional $1,092.00 in attorneys’ fees to review Judgment Debtors’ opposition hereto, drafting the reply brief, and appearing for the hearing.” (Mot., 7:16-18.) This amount is already included in the Judgment Creditor’s lodestar amount. (See Ex. 1 [last three billing entries].) Moreover, in the absence of an opposition and reply, this amount is reduced to $390 – the cost of attending the hearing only.

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58