Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV02684, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02684    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, but attorney fees are reduced to $9,750. The court requests Plaintiff file an amended proposed judgment.

Background

This case arises from a breach of a lease agreement.

On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff Best Western Summit, Inc. filed suit against Defendants CPI Security Corp. and Joseph Carmona.[1]

On November 1, 2023, default was entered against both Defendants.

On November 15, 2023, Plaintiff a default judgment application, which the court on 1/23/24 denied without prejudice.

On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant default judgment application.

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants CPI and Carmona for a total of $66,735.13. The break-down is as follows: $46,645.00 in damages; $3,625.66 in prejudgment interest in 10%, $1,557.97 in costs; and $14,906.50 in attorney fees.

Previously, the court denied the application for a variety of defects, including (1) the lack of clarity as to the individual Defendant’s liability; (2) $9,595.50 in attorney fees was unreasonable for a simple breach of contract case; and (3) lack of interest computation.

Now, as for the first defect (liability of the individual defendant), Plaintiff explains that both CPI and Carmona are named “Tenants” pursuant to Plaintiff and Defendants’ lease agreement. (See Plaintiff’s Summary of the Case.)

Here, pursuant to Paragraph 35 of the Parties’ lease, “If there is more than one Tenant, each one shall be individually and completely responsible for the performance of all obligations of Tenant under this agreement, jointly with every other Tenant, and individually, whether or not in possession.” (See Declaration of Kelly Stanaway, Exhibit A-5, p. 16 of 82 of PDF.)

Therefore, that defect is cured as both can the corporation and individual defendant can be liable as they are both tenants.

As for attorney fees,[2] the court finds them unreasonable. According to the appellate court in Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, attorney fees are meant to “fully compensate counsel for . . . services reasonably provided to his or her client.” (Id. at p. 395.) “The basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case.” (Ibid, emphasis added.) In assessing the actual hours spent, when counsel presents verified time records, there is a “presumption of credibility” such that the time records are “entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Id. at p. 396.) That said, while a trial court abuses its discretion in “rejecting wholesale counsels’ verified time records,” (ibid) it may deny compensation for “inefficient or duplicative” work. (Id. at p. 394, quoting Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132, emphasis added.)

According to Counsel Larson, $14,906.50 is reasonable “[d]ue to Defendants’ multiple breaches, Plaintiff has continually had to expend more time and fees to recover its losses.” (Larson Decl., p. 2.) There is no elaboration or explanation otherwise.

But the hours are largely duplicative. The activities are largely, if not mostly, dedicated to “communicat[ing] with others,” which includes “preparing emails” and “email exchanges” (spanning from 12/1/22 to 2/7/24). While Defendants may have repeatedly breached (presumably) the lease agreement, the number of repeated billing entries regarding said breaches appears to outnumber the breaches, impressing upon the court that the communications of this volume are exaggerated.

Thus, the court reduces the billable hours. (For clarification, the court does not reduce the hours spent on drafting documents.)

As for the hourly rates, they are as follows: Counsel Larson’s hourly rate is $400/hour, which he reduced for Plaintiff in or around July 2023 to $385/hour; Counsel Moy’s hourly rate is $325/hour.

Here, however, Plaintiff has not provided a discussion of the local hourly rate to justify its hourly rate.

Therefore, for a seemingly simple breach of lease agreement (contracts), the court reduces the award to $325/hour.

Therefore, as the docket reveals no substantive motions and no substantive work was required in this case aside from settlement/mediation, the court awards attorney fees in the reduced amount of $9,750 ($325/hour x 30 hours).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the default judgment is granted, subject to the modification above.