Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21STCV33318, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33318    Hearing Date: November 27, 2024    Dept: 74

Torres v. Marapao

Defendant Sydney Marapao’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

BACKGROUND 

            Plaintiff David Torres, Jr (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendant Sydney Marapao (Defendant) alleging fraud and breach of contract.  Defendant filed a cross-complaint primarily alleging, in relevant part, breach of a promissory note.  Both the complaint and cross-complaint disputed the purchase of Gemini Home Health, Inc.

            On March 8, 2024, Judgement was entered against Plaintiff on the Complaint and for Defendant on the cross-complaint.

            On May 13, 2024, Defendant filed his unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees against cross-defendant Rex Rodriguez.

LEGAL STANDARD

The California Code of Civil Procedure provides for attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a contract action only if the contract included an attorneys’ fees provision.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1717.)  The “prevailing party” is the party who obtained grater relief in the action.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1717(b)(1).)

            Verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred.  (See Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.)  Counsel has the burden of providing the reasonable number of hours devoted to the litigation, through declarations, or redacted or unredacted timesheets or billing records.  (Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1325.)  “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.)  

The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant is entitled to attorney fees based on the Attorneys’ Fees and Costs provision of the Promissory Note.  The provision states, in relevant part:

Promissors agree that if this Note is placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, Promissors shall pay reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees. 

Defendant was the prevailing party.  (Richardson Decl., Ex. “A.”)  Defendant alleges that the claims under the complaint were “part and parcel” to the cross-complaint.  Rodriguez does not dispute Defendant’s allegation.

            Defendant requests a total of $95,615.00 in attorneys’ fees for two attorneys.  Attorney Abe Marapao’s hourly rate is $500.00, and he spent 99.20 hours handling the matter.  (Marapao Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7.)  Additionally, Marapao paid an appearance attorney to cover an appearance and attorney Cameron Gilbert to assist in preparing demurrers in the matter, for a total of an additional $2,185.00.  (Marapao Decl., ¶ 7.)  Defendant also hired attorney Danton Richardson. Richardson’s hourly rate is $400.00 an hour and he spent 114.1 hours handling the matter.  (Richardson Decl., ¶ 7, 9.)  Both Marapao and Richardson include their billing records as exhibits in support of Marapao’s motion.  (Mot., Ex. “C”, Ex. “D.”)  Rodriguez has not opposed the award of attorneys’ fees.  The court finds the amounts reasonable.

CONCLUSION

            The court grants defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $95,615.

            Defendant to give notice.