Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: BC4114854, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties
concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon
resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an
agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if
you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by
notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear
at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue
the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties
in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to
argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words
"SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.
If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via
Court-Connect.

If
the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling,
the Court will take the matter off calendar.




            Note
that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.

        If you
submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or
thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the
court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Judgment Creditors’ motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in the amount of $388,737.65.

Plaintiffs and Judgment Creditors’ Jack Simantob and 8451 Melrose LLC move for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $388,737.65, including reimbursable expenses.

On October 14, 2020, Plaintiffs Jack Simantob and 8451 Melrose LLC, (“Plaintiffs” or “Judgment Creditors”) filed a complaint against Defendants Michael S Drucker, Esq., Ian J. Singer, Esq., Foley, Bezek, Behle & Curtis, LLP (“Defendants” or “Judgment Debtors”). The complaint alleged one cause of action: Malicious Prosecution.

On December 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which added Sina Akhtarzad as a Defendant.

Judgment Creditors filed the instant motion on July 28, 2022. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The Court’s objective is to award attorney’s fees at the fair market value based on the particular action. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “‘[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 . . . .’” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134.) The lodestar method is based on several factors, as relevant to each particular case: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Id. at 1132.) “The ‘‘experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’’” (Id.) A negative modifier is appropriate when duplicative work is performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)

Code of Civil Procedure, § 685.070(a) states in pertinent part: “The judgment creditor may claim under this section the following costs of enforcing a judgment: . . . (6) Attorney’s fees, if allowed by Section 685.040.” Code of Civil Procedure § 685.040 provides that a “judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.” Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are expressly excluded unless otherwise provided by law. (Id.) Attorney’s fees that are incurred in enforcing a judgment are collectible as costs “if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of section 1033.5” which allows for attorney’s fees when authorized by contract. (Id; Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(10)(A).)

Code of Civil Procedure § 685.080(a) allows a Judgment Creditor to claim costs by noticed motion “before the judgment is satisfied in full, but not later than two years after the costs have been incurred.” In addition, § 685.080(b) requires that:

“[t]he notice of motion shall describe the costs claimed, shall state their amount, and shall be supported by an affidavit of a person who has knowledge of the facts stating that to the person’s best knowledge and belief the costs are correct, are reasonable and necessary, and have not been satisfied. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.”

Here, the Judgment from the underlying case awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1717 and Section 29.21 of the lease in issue in the action in totaling over $1.2 million. (Taitelman Decl. ¶ 2.) The total amount of the judgment as of the date of entry was $12,428,584.85. (Id.) On October 20, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion for attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal on behalf of Judgment Creditors. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Court awarded an additional $261,960.80 in attorneys’ fees and an additional $8,937.03 in costs. (Id. ¶ 4.) Thus, Judgment Creditors are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in enforcing the Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 685.040.

Judgment Creditor seeks to recover attorney’s fees incurred during the past two years in the effort to enforce the judgment, in the amount of $388,737.65 and submits the declarations of Counsel Lewis R. Landau and Michael Taitelman, in support of their request. (Landau Decl. ¶¶ 9-11, Taitelman Decl. ¶¶ 7-14.) During the litigation, Akhtarzad filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition. (Taitelman Decl. ¶ 5.) The parties stipulated to relief from stay to allow the amount of Akhtarzad’s liability to be determined. Taitelman states that “[e]xcept for a relatively small proportion of the judgment paid out of a reserve established in Akhtarzad’s bankruptcy case, the judgment remains unsatisfied.” (Id. ¶ 6.) To collect the balance of the judgment, Judgment Debtors prosecuted a contested creditor’s claim in the Bankruptcy Court and initiated an adversary proceeding to seek a determination that the judgment is not dischargeable by Akhtarzad’s bankruptcy. (Id.) Lewis R. Landau, an attorney specializing in bankruptcy cases with more than 30 years of experience, was retained to represent Judgment Creditors in those proceedings, along with Freedman + Taitelman, LLP. (Id.)

Judgment Creditors seek $388,737.65 in attorney’s fees and expenses for legal work in connection with Akhtarzad’s bankruptcy proceeding during the past two years in the effort to collect the judgment rendered in this proceeding.

During the period between July 29, 2020, and June 30, 2022, Attorney Landau spent 456.5 hours performing services on behalf of Judgment Creditors in connection with the Akhtarzad bankruptcy case. (Landau Decl. ¶ 9.) Landau billed at the following rates: $545 per hour in 2020, $595 per hour in 2021, and $645 per hour in 2022. (Id.) Landau declares those rates are reasonable for an attorney with his education, skill, and experience practicing bankruptcy law in the Los Angeles area. (Id.) The charges for his total time were $267,915.50. (Id.) Lee also advanced reimbursable costs in the total amount of $1,248.00 in connection with his representation of Judgment Creditors. (Id. ¶ 10.) The charges for his time and the reimbursable expenses together total $269,165.50. (Id.)

Attorney Taitelman charged an hourly rate of $450 per hour for his time during 2020, $500 for time during 2021, and $550 for time during 2022. (Taitelman Decl. ¶ 7.) Attorney Steven E. Formaker charged $450 per hour. (Id. ¶ 8.) Attorney Tamar Yeghiayan charged $395 per hour. (Id. ¶ 9.) Taitelman declares that the hourly rates are reasonable given their experience and skills, and the legal market in the Los Angeles area. (Id. ¶ 10.) In addition to using associate attorneys, the firm employed the help of a paralegal, Tiffany Davis whose billing rate is $150 per hour, which Taitelman claims is reasonable based on Ms. Davis’s years of experience in the Los Angeles area, their education and experience, and for cases of this nature. (Id. ¶ 11.) Taitelman’s firm billed a total of $119,572.15 during the period from October 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022. (Id. ¶ 14.)

The Court notes that Judgment Debtors do not contest the above stated hourly rates. Based on the Court’s experience, these rates are reasonable.

Although detailed time records are not required, California Courts have expressed a preference for contemporaneous billing and an explanation of work. (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.) “Of course, the attorney’s testimony must be based on the attorney’s personal knowledge of the time spent and fees incurred. (Evid.Code, § 702, subd. (a) [‘the testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter’].) Still, precise calculations are not required; fair approximations based on personal knowledge will suffice.” (Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. v. Ersoff (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 257, 269.)

Here, Judgment Creditors have submitted documentation supporting 250.80 billable hours performed by Freedman + Taitelman, LLP, representing $119,572.15 and 465.5 hours performed by Attorney Lewis R. Landau, representing $267,915.50. (Taitelman Decl., Exhib. B; Landau Decl. Exhib. A.)

In reviewing the billing record, the Court finds that the hours are reasonable considering the complexity of the case and the large amount at stake. The Court notes that the requested fees represent roughly 3% of the judgment amount. Thus, the Court finds attorney’s fees in the amount of $388,737.65 to be reasonable.

Accordingly, Judgment Creditors’ request for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED in the amount of $388,737.65 in attorney’s fees.

Therefore, Judgment Creditors’ request for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED in the amount of $388,737.65 in attorney’s fees.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court