Judge Cynthia A Freeland, Case 37-2022-00034068-CL-MC-NC 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2022-00034068-CL-MC-NC, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023 01:30:00 PM N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00034068-CL-MC-NC RILEY VS. LOTANO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 03/27/2023

Plaintiff/Interpleader Brian R. Riley ('Plaintiff')'s motion for: (1) an order of discharge in interpleader and dismissal, and (2) an award of attorney's fees and costs is granted.

California Code of Civil Procedure ('CCP') § 386(b) provides that '[a]ny person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 386(b). On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint In Interpleader asserting that he was counsel of record for Defendant Mary Michelle Lotano in a personal injury action, Lotano v. House, et al. (Case No.

37-2021-00025818-CU-PA-NC), which was commenced on June 9, 2021 (the 'Personal Injury Action').

As a result of the automobile accident that gave rise to the Personal Injury Action, Ms. Lotano sought medical treatment and services from various healthcare providers including Defendant Nima Arabani, D.C. On February 25, 2020, Plaintiff signed a Doctor's Lien to permit Dr. Arabani to perform massage and therapy and acupuncture services on a lien basis. On April 7, 2021, Dr. Arabani provided Plaintiff's office with Ms. Lotano's medical records and a bill totaling $12,525.00. The Personal Injury Action settled at mediation and Plaintiff deposited the settlement funds into his attorney-client trust account on February 15, 2022. Of the settlement proceeds, there remains $12,525.00 – the amount outstanding on Dr. Arabani's billing statement – in the attorney-client trust account. Dr. Arabani and Ms. Lotano have competing claims to the funds, and Plaintiff is indifferent with respect to whom should receive the funds and in what amount. Plaintiff represents at ¶ 21 of the Complaint In Interpleader that he has deposited $12,525.00 with the Clerk of the Court under CCP § 386(c). On August 25, 2022, the court issued an order to deposit the funds with the Clerk of the Court. See ROA No. 8.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for an order discharging him from further liability in this matter. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 386.5. Defendant does not oppose an order of discharge, which the court construes as his concession of the motion's merits on that point. See San Diego Rules of Court, Rule 2.1.19.B. The deposited funds shall be held by the Clerk pending the outcome of this litigation and will be disbursed upon further order and at the direction of the court. Defendants may litigate their respective rights and claims to the funds. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 386(e). Each defendant/claimant is restrained from instituting or further prosecuting any other proceeding in any court in this court affecting the rights and obligations as between the parties to the interpleader until further order of the court. See Cal. Code Civ. P. § 386(f).

That leaves the issue of Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs to be paid out of the funds.

Toward that end, CCP § 386.6(a) provides that '[a] party to an action who follows the procedure set forth Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2954173 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RILEY VS. LOTANO [IMAGED] 37-2022-00034068-CL-MC-NC in Section 386 or 386.5 may insert in his motion, petition, complaint, or cross complaint a request for allowance of his costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in such action. In ordering the discharge of such party, the court, in its discretion, may award such party his costs and reasonable attorney fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court. At the time of final judgment in the action the court may make such further provision for assumption of such costs and attorney fees by one or more of the adverse claimants as may appear proper.' Cal. Code Civ. P. § 386.6(a). CCP § 386.6(b) provides that '[a] party shall not be denied the attorney fees authorized by subdivision (a) for the reason that he is himself an attorney, appeared in pro se, and performed his own legal services.' Cal. Code Civ.

P. § 386.6(b).

Defendant challenges the amount of attorney's fees and costs requested and contends that the amount should be reduced from $5,831.50 to, at most, $1,467.50. This argument is unavailing. Notably, Defendant's contention that Plaintiff failed to provide evidence substantiating his fee request is belied by Plaintiff's declaration in support of the Complaint In Interpleader. See ROA No. 3. Paragraph 14 of the declaration sets forth Plaintiff's hourly rate as well as the number of hours expended and anticipated to draft the Complaint In Interpleader and prosecute the present motion. That being said, the court maintains an independent duty to assess the reasonableness of the requested fees and costs. '[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . . The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.' Ketchum v. Moses (2011) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1134. Plaintiff, as the party seeking an award of attorney's fees and costs, 'bear[s] the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hours rates.' ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal. App. 4th 993, 1020.

In determining a reasonable hourly rate, the court must consider the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, which typically means comparable attorneys' rates in the forum district. See Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal. App. 4th 972, 1009. The court should consider the requesting attorney's experience, skill, and reputation, and may also rely upon its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market. Ibid. In addition, the court can review attorney affidavits regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases. Ibid. The difficulty or complexity of the litigation is also a relevant factor. See Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 691, 700.

In this case, Defendant, without evidence, 'surmise[s] a common rate of $350 per hour.' The court respectfully disagrees. The court finds that Plaintiff's experience, skill, and reputation warrants the requested hourly rate of $375.00. His hourly rate is also consistent with the court's understanding of the prevailing market rates for similarly situated attorneys in the San Diego legal community. While the issues associated with this interpleader action were not complex, the court nevertheless finds that Plaintiff, who has 39 years of litigation experience, merits the requested rate.

As to the number of hours expended, Defendant, as the objecting party, bears the burden of referencing the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. See Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 550, 564. Defendant fails to meet his burden. Indeed, Defendant's opposition contains little more than his contention that the fee request is excessive and that the various tasks could have been performed in less time or at a reduced expense. This is insufficient. Ibid. ('General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.'). Moreover, the court, having considered Plaintiff's declaration, finds that the requested fees and costs were reasonably and necessarily incurred.

In light of the foregoing, the court grants the motion and: (1) discharges Plaintiff from further liability in this matter, and (2) awards Plaintiff $5,831.50 in attorney's fees and costs.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, August 4, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of August 4, 2023. If the parties are Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2954173 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RILEY VS. LOTANO [IMAGED] 37-2022-00034068-CL-MC-NC satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2954173