Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV22654, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV22654    Hearing Date: October 25, 2023    Dept: 14

Instant Motion

Plaintiff now moves this court, pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(d) and the settlement agreement, for an award of attorney’s fees of $28,734.00 and costs of $1,038.00.

Decision

            Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED. The fee orders of other trial courts in other cases are not citable as precedent nor relevant to a fee determination in this case.

The motion is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees of $21,452.00 and costs of $1,038.00.

Governing Standard

“In determining the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be awarded under a statutory attorney fees provision, the trial court begins by calculating the ‘lodestar’ amount…[t]he ‘lodestar’ is ‘the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.’ (Citation.) To determine the reasonable hourly rate, the court looks to the ‘hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar work.’ (Citation.) Using the lodestar as the basis for the attorney fee award ‘anchors the trial court's analysis to an objective determination of the value of an attorney's services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Citation.)’” Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4^th 1379, 1393-1394.

“Some federal courts require that an attorney maintain and submit ‘contemporaneous, complete and standardized time records which accurately reflect the work done by each attorney’ in support of an application for attorney fees…[i]n California, an attorney need not submit contemporaneous time records in order to recover attorney fees…[t]estimony 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.” Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559. “[A]n award of attorney fees may be based on counsel's declarations, without production of detailed time records.” Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4^th 1363, 1375. “‘“[P]adding’ in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation.’” Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (2008) 163 Cal.App.4^th 550, 556.

Discussion

Plaintiff has submitted a detailed billing statement as Exhibit 24 to the Declaration of Julian Moore. That statement includes the work of no fewer than 16 individuals. However, Plaintiff has only supplied supporting evidence for the qualifications and work of two: Mr. Julian Moore and Mr. Joseph Kowalski. (Declaration of Julian Moore ¶ 23). Therefore, only the hours of Mr. Moore and Mr. Kowalski will be reviewed and awarded. See In re Marriage of Nassimi (2016) 3 Cal.App.5^th 667, 695 (party seeking fees bears the burden of producing evidence to justify the request); see also Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5^th 24, 39 & fn.7.

The records indicate that Mr. Moore spent 17.8 hours at $515 per hour. They indicate that Mr. Kowalski spent 35.1 hours at $350 per hour. Plaintiff additionally seeks a flat fee of $5000 for preparing the reply and appearing at the hearing for the instant motion.[1] Review of the objections, as contained in the Opposition, reveals only one with merit.

The records indicate that Mr. Moore spent 8.1 hours of his time preparing the moving papers. The addition of the requested flat fee to this total would render the award connected with this motion unreasonable. Ordinarily, 8.1 hours would be an appropriate amount of time to spend on the whole fee motion, from drafting to argument. And the court cannot simply award a flat fee; there is neither a way to properly calculate it, nor a way for Defense to oppose it. Therefore, no flat fee will be awarded and the 8.1 hours will stand as Plaintiff’s sole compensation for this motion.

Defense does not address the costs issue at all, except to say that they plan to file a motion to tax Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1700(b). But such a motion would be untimely under that same rule: a motion to tax must be filed within 15 days of service of the motion to tax costs, plus an extra 2 days for electronic service.

The cost memorandum was filed and served on September 29, 2023. The last day for Plaintiff to challenge it was therefore October 18, 2024. No such motion has been filed. Therefore, Defense has waived their right to challenge costs.

Conclusion