Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Ascentium Capital LLC v. Mitchell Street Dental Group PC, et al", Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

The unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees filed by Plaintiff, Ascentium Capital LLC (“Ascentium”) is GRANTED, in part.

Under Civil Code §1717(a), the prevailing party on an action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees incurred to enforce that contract, is entitled to claim reasonable attorney’s fees.  Here, Plaintiff is plainly the prevailing party, and has identified a contractual right to claim such fees. (See ROA 354, Beyer Decl., ¶ 2 and Ex. A.)

In order for the court to allow attorney fees it must be demonstrated that the fees sought are reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation (CCP 1033.5(c)(2)) and reasonable in amount (CCP 1033.5(c)(3)).  The burden of proof as to the reasonableness and necessity of attorney fees is on the party seeking same.  (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 618.)  The court has broad authority to determine reasonable fees.  (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  Such determination normally is based on the “lodestar” method, which is based on the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate, and is presumably reasonable.  (Id. at 1097.)

The Court has reviewed the entirety of the billing entries submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel and finds that, in terms of the time billed, there is no obvious evidence of attorney “padding,” overbilling, or duplicative billing by Plaintiff’s counsel, aside from three entries discussed below.  The work performed appears reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.  (CCP 1033.5(c)(2); see also, Beyer Declaration ¶ 4.)  In addition, Defendants did not oppose the motion and thus have not identified any specific fees that are unreasonable.

The entry on 05/31/21 for 1.6 hours ($632) for “Analyze borrower and PG responses to ROGs and RFPs” appears to be duplicative of a prior entry.  The entry on 4/27/22 for 2.6 hours ($897) for “Analyze pleadings and discovery to determine the best course of action in matter” appears to be duplicative of a prior entry.  There is also an entry on 05/10/22 for 1 hour with no description of the task completed and billed at $2,350 per hour!  As these three entries do not appear reasonable, the Court will deduct said entries from the fees awarded.

The Court finds the hourly rates to be generally reasonable, aside from an entry for 1 hour on 06/22/18 for drafting the suit billed at $950 per hour.  Given that Plaintiff’s counsel offers no argument regarding the reasonableness of said hourly rate, the Court will reduce the rate to $345 per hour for that entry.  This results in a further deduction of $605 from the fees award.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Motion in part, with a reduced award of $47,645.30 in attorney’s fees in favor of Ascentium and against Defendants, Mitchell Street Dental Group, PC and Kenneth Higgins.

Ascentium is to submit a proposed judgment within 10 days.

Moving party to give notice of this ruling.