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