Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 23PSCV01227, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01227, Date: 2023-09-15 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: 23PSCV01227 Hearing Date: September 15, 2023 Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice/May Be Granted During the Hearing [See ‘Conclusion’ Section Below]

Background

This is a contracts case. Plaintiff RENE NATALIA STEEL aka NATALIE STEELE alleges that she and Defendant WALEED MONA entered into a contract (promissory note) for a loan of $250,000, but Defendant has defaulted on the payment(s).

On April 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit for breach of written contract.

On June 14, 2023, default was entered against Defendant.

On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed its request for entry of clerk judgment, which the clerk denied on that same day because “Amts stated in request/judgment are not stated in the prayer of the complaint. No interest start date. Atty fees claimed do not comply w/ atty fee schedule per local court rules. Clerk cannot process. Proceed w/ Request for Court Judgment.”

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $274,875.97, the breakdown is as follows: damages of $269,624.00, attorney fees of $4,600, and costs of $651.97. (See JUD-100 form.)

The application is denied for one reason (interest) and the amount of judgment is reduced for another reason (attorney fees).

First, the application is denied without interest because the court is uncertain as to the calculation of damages. According to the complaint, the loan was for $250,000 and Defendant was to also make four payments of $7,000. According to the complaint, all four payments were made. (See Complaint ¶¶9, 10 [Defendant made two payments in May and June of 2021, and then in January 2022, Defendant paid an additional $14,000].) Thus, the principal of only $250,000 appears to be due. To the extent that the $269,624.00 amount includes interest, Plaintiff has not provided a computation (as required per CCP Section 558).

Therefore, for the failure to explain interest, the application is denied.

Second, the total amount of judgment entered against Defendant would be reduced because of unreasonable attorney fees.

Plaintiff’s Counsel seeks $46,000 in attorney fees (calculated as follows: total of three hours [sic] (6.0) hours drafting the Complaint, one half of an hour (.5) requesting entry of default, and an additional three [sic] five (5.0) hours compiling and filing the documents for request of entry of default judgment” for a total of 11.5 hours. (See Prybylo Decl.)

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, emphasis added.) 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.)

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).)

Here, after a review of the complaint, the court finds that expending 6 hours drafting the complaint is unreasonable because it is (i) for one count of breach of contract (not difficult/complex), (ii) amounts to four pages of allegations, and (iii) and the twenty-five allegations are largely repetitive of each other/merely recitations of the elements of breach of contract (i.e., amount loaned, amount due, date of breach).

Thus, the court reduces the hours expended in drafting the complaint from 6 hours to 2.5 hours.

Additionally, based upon the court’s research of the market rate, an hourly rate of $400 is above average. Thus, absent an explanation as to why $400 hourly rate fee is warranted on a simple breach of contract case, the court reduces the hourly rate to $300/hour.

Therefore, the court reduces the hours expended on handling the matter from 11.5 to 7 hours at an hourly rate of $300 for a total of $2,100 [$300 x 7 hours].

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is denied without prejudice.

Rather than submit a new application and attend a new hearing date, Plaintiff may submit a supplemental declaration that provides a computation of interest. If filed within a reasonable time before the hearing, the court may grant the application during the hearing in a reduced amount, to which Plaintiff is to submit a new/modified proposed order that accounts for the reduction in attorney fees.