Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC556252, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC556252    Hearing Date: April 24, 2024    Dept: 74

Takako Mikuriya  v. Pablo Daniel Hernandez, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a contractual dispute.

            On August 29, 2014, Plaintiff Takako Mikuriya (Mikuriya) filed a complaint against Defendants Romanbella Properties, Inc., Elvis OCC, and Metrosun, Inc. (Defendants), in addition to Pablo Daniel Hernandez and Nikita Brown.

            In 2014, Mikuriya died and Ashley Cooley (Cooley) was appointed special administrator of the estate.

            In 2015, the parties entered a settlement.

            On November 21, 2023, Mikuriya, by and through Cooley (Plaintiff), filed this motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorneys’ fees and costs incurred enforcing the settlement agreement. (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) The settlement agreement provides as follows: “In the event of a dispute relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred after the execution of this Agreement, including attorneys’ fees and costs relating to the enforcement of this Agreement and the entry, enforcement, and collection of the Judgment upon this Agreement.” (Nam Decl., Ex. A, p. 4.)

            In opposition, Defendants’ counsel contends the court should deny this motion for several reasons. First, Plaintiff’s counsel substantiates the request for attorneys’ fees with a declaration, rather than time records and billing statements. But Defendants’ counsel concedes contemporaneous time records are not indispensable in this context. (Taylor v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 205, 207.) Second, Defendants’ counsel objects that Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration reflects block billing and vague summaries of work performed. In the reply, though, Plaintiff’s counsel has provided further detail about the hours for which she seeks compensation and the nature of the work performed. (Nam Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6-9.)[1]

            Third, Defendants’ counsel argues Defendants are not liable for fees Plaintiff’s counsel incurred prosecuting the case against Co-Defendants Pablo Hernandez and Nikita Brown. However, Defendants’ counsel does not direct the court to language in the agreement that Defendants and Co-Defendants are proportionately responsible for attorneys’ fees. Nor does Defendants’ counsel cite any applicable authority. Fourth, Defendants’ counsel asserts Defendant should not be liable for fees Plaintiff’s counsel incurred prosecuting the case against Non-Party Ruth Hernandez. But Defendants’ counsel does not identify the relevant work and hours that the court should deduct from Plaintiff’s counsel’s award.

            Fifth, Defendants’ counsel contends Plaintiff’s counsel should not recover fees incurred in her motion to appoint Cooley as personal representative. According to Defendants’ counsel, this work resulted from Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to follow proper procedure. Aside from this conclusory assertion, though, Defendants’ counsel does not demonstrate how Plaintiff’s counsel failed to follow proper procedure. And sixth, Defendant’s counsel claims any work associated with Plaintiff’s response to the court’s order to show cause re: dismissal is outside the scope of this case. But the court issued the order to show cause after granting Defendants’ motion to set aside the judgment pursuant to the settlement terms. (Nam Supp. Decl.; Ex. A.) Given the foregoing, Defendants have not persuaded the court that Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested attorney fees should be reduced.

CONCLUSION

                The court grants Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the sum of $59,375.00.[2]

            Plaintiff shall give notice.