Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC717120, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC717120 Hearing Date: May 4, 2023 Dept: 74
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT 74
|
¿¿¿¿338 SOUTH AVENUE 16, LLC; ¿¿Plaintiffs¿, vs. ¿¿¿¿MICHAEL HAROLD MEYER, LAMONT KARLTON ROBERTS, et al.,¿ ¿¿Defendants¿. |
Case No.: |
BC717120 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: |
¿May
4, 2023¿ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
8:30 a.m. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: Defendant’s Motion for Attorney
Fees and Costs |
||
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff 338 South Avenue 16, LLC
RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants Michael Harold Meyer and Lamont
Karlton Roberts
Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs
The
court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
BACKGROUND
On
August 7, 2018, Plaintiff 338 South Avenue 16 LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint
against Defendants Michael Harold Meyer (Defendant Meyer) and Lamont Karlton
Roberts (Defendant Roberts).
On
January 11, 2019, default was entered against Defendant Roberts.
On
May 19, 2022, following a bench trial the court ordered judgment against
Defendants in the sum of $133,360.60.
On
July 17, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for attorney fees of $87,373.50.
DISCUSSION
The
parties do not dispute whether attorney fees are warranted. However, Defendants
argue for a reduced reward because the court had entered a default judgment against
Defendant Roberts. In support of their argument, Defendants invoke Local Rule
3.214, subdivision (a): “When a promissory note, contract, or statute provides
for the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees, the following schedule will
apply to amount of the new judgment unless otherwise determined by the court .
. . Default case: Over $100,000, $2,890 plus $1 of the excess over $100,000.)”
As expressly stated in the rule, however, this schedule does not apply when the
court finds otherwise. Here, the court finds good cause not to rely on Local
Rule 3.214 in determining Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees following a multi-day
bench trial. First, the court finds that Plaintiff’s counsels’ hourly rates are
reasonable. (Vivoli Decl., ¶ 4.) Second, Plaintiff’s counsel has provided a
breakdown of work performed with billing records. (Vivoli Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6; Ex.
A.)
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s request for attorney fees in the
amount of $87,373.50.
Plaintiff
is ordered to give notice.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: ¿May
4, 2023
_____________________________
Colin Leis
Judge of the Superior Court