Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV00847, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV00847    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff PPF INDUSTRIAL PECK CENTER I, LP’s MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF ATTORNEYS' FEES is GRANTED, but in the reduced amount of $18,967.19.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer (UD) action.

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed suit against JM GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION, a California corporation, aka JM GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION, INC.; HO MAN LAI, an individual, aka HOMAN LA.

On August 31, 2022, Defendants filed their answer.

On September 21, 2022, the matter was called for trial, but the minute order indicates that “bankruptcy has just been filed as to JM Global.” Based thereon, the trial was vacated.

On November 7 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice Of Relief Of Automatic Bankruptcy Stay.

On November 23, 2022, the matter was called for trial, but, according to the minute order, there was no appearance by Defendants, resulting in the trial court granting the judgment for possession against all unnamed occupants. The court also entered default against Defendants that day.

On December 23, 2022, default was set aside against Defendants and the Notice of Evacuation was vacated.

On January 26, 2023, the matter was called for trial. The minute order provides, in pertinent part, the following:

Stipulation is reached between plaintiff and defendant Ho Man Lai. A trial as to defendant JM Global Distribution is held . . . Judgment for possession is granted against all unnamed occupants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.46. Restitution and possession of the premises located at 2488 Peck Road, City of Industry, CA 90601 is granted for plaintiff(s) Lease Agreement under which the property is held is hereby forfeited. Writ to issue forthwith, but no lockout prior to 02/13/2023. Proposed Judgment is signed and filed this date. The parties are provided with copies of the Judgment in open court.

On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorney fees.

On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to its motion for attorney fees.

Legal Standard

Civil Code section 1717 states that “[i]n 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(a)) (emphasis added).

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. A computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.)  Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id. at 48, n.23.) After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is a reasonable figure.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-96.) 

The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include 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 Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal. App. 4th 770, 774 (emphasis added and italics original).) A negative modifier was appropriate when duplicative work had been performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks $28,377.50 in attorneys' fees. (Motion p. 4.)

According to the billing entries, Counsel Fleming expended 42 hours on the motion [calculated as follows: 6.10 hours (Motion p. 16 of 43 of PDF) + 12.50 hours (p. 19) + 1.70 (p. 20) + 8.8 hours (p. 21) + 7 hours (p. 23) + 5.90 hours (p. 25)] (or, alternatively: $15,750/$375 hourly rate=42 hours).

However, the court does not find 42 hours reasonable because most of the billing pertains to reviewing material (notably emails and other communications) not necessarily drafting and filing motions/papers. In fact, the docket does not reveal any substantive motions (e.g., discovery motions, summary judgment, etc.).

Therefore, considering the lack of novelty in the case and the minimal filings, the court reduces the total hours expended to 35 hours. 35 hours x $375 hourly rate is $13,125 plus the $1,176.20 court costs for a total of $14,301.20 for Plaintiff’s Counsel (Sheldon J. Fleming).

As for Counsel Timothy J. Yoo’s (who handled the bankruptcy matter), he is seeking $11,765.00. (Ex. 4). The court finds the fee unreasonable.

First, the court has not been provided with a copy of the motion for relief from automatic bankruptcy stay for the court to ascertain whether nearly 20 hours of work is reasonable, notably when those motions generally can be submitted on standard form(s). Furthermore, the court finds Yoo’s hourly rate of $650 to be unreasonable and his declaration does not explain why $650 is reasonable. Thus, the court reduces the hourly rate to match that of Counsel Fleming ($375/hour).

Utilizing the Lodestar method, the court awards Counsel Yoo $3,750 in attorney fees (10 hours at $375/hour) and recovery of costs. Plaintiff has not provided a computation of costs, but it appears to be $425.73 (p. 31) plus $490.26 (p. 35).

Therefore, the court awards Counsel Yoo a total of $4,665.99.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted, but in the reduced amount of $18,967.19 ($14,301.20 plus $4,665.99).