Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 18MCV00212, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18MCV00212    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

On November 9, 2018, Plaintiffs Hero Dogs Season One LLC (HDS1) and Nuriya Entertainment LLC (Nuriya) commenced this action against Defendants Dean A. Avedon, Bemel, Ross & Avedon, LLP, David Beitchman, and Beitchman & Zekian, a Professional Law Corporation. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed June 11, 2019.

The matter came on for a bench trial on October 31, 2022. The Court found in favor of Defendants and entered judgment accordingly on December 6, 2022. The judgment provided that “Plaintiffs shall take nothing by their First Amended Complaint or by any purported cause of action therein, as against Defendants.” The judgment identified Defendants as the prevailing parties.

On December 13, 2022, Defendants Dean Avedon and Bemel, Ross, & Avedon, LLP filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to an engagement letter between Plaintiffs and Defendants.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.) The lodestar method for calculating attorney fees applies to any statutory attorney fees award, unless the statute authorizing the award provides for another method of calculation. (Glaviano v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 744, 750-751.) “Under the lodestar method, the trial court must first determine the lodestar figure—the reasonable hours spent multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate—based on a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of the case.” (Id. at p. 751.) The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

DISCUSSION

I. Defendants’ Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees

“Attorney's fees may . . . be awarded as costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, when authorized by contract. The attorney's fees clause in a contract may be broad enough to cover tort as well as contract causes of action.” (Hasler v. Howard (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1171 (Hasler II).)

            Here, the undisputed agreement between the parties provides that “[i]n the event any litigation is commenced to enforce, interpret or declare rights of the parties to this agreement, the prevailing party shall recover his, her or its reasonable attorney fees and costs.” (Dean Decl., Ex. A.) This language is broad enough to cover the causes of action in this case—professional malpractice, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion. These causes of action sought to enforce, interpret, or declare Plaintiffs’ rights.

            In opposition, Plaintiff relies on distinguishable cases involving fee provisions demonstrably narrower than the one at issue here. In Hasler v. Howard (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1027 (Hasler I), the fee provision “only applie[d] to actions ‘regarding the obligation to pay compensation’ under the listing agreement.” In Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp. (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 698, 702, the fee provision applied to proceedings “to enforce the terms [of the agreement] or declare rights hereunder . . . .” In Loube v. Loube (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 421, 430, “[t]he narrowly drawn attorney fee provision . . . providing for the payment of fees for an action brought to enforce the terms of the parties' agreement, cannot be read as a contractual agreement to award fees in an action brought for legal malpractice.”

            The fee provision here is not so limited, instead applying to any action to enforce, interpret, or declare the rights of Plaintiffs or Defendants. The fee provision is not limited to litigation regarding the terms of the engagement letter itself. It covers not just breach of contract claims, but also the tort claims asserted here. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees.

II. Reasonable Amount of Attorney Fees

Defendants move for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $402,835.50.    

            1.  Reasonable Hourly Rates

Defendants’ attorneys and attorneys’ staff billed between $105.00 and $265.00 per hour for their work on this matter.      

“In determining hourly rates, the court must look to the ‘prevailing market rates in the relevant community.’”  (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 100.)  In making this determination, “[t]he court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market.”  (Ibid.) 

The Court finds that the $230.00 per hour is the reasonable hourly rate in this case.

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

The total number of billable hours claimed by Defendants’ attorneys and attorneys’ staff is 2,098 hours. Defendants, however, do not supply any supporting documentation for these

            The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent by Defendants’ attorneys and attorneys’ staff are 500 hours. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED.  The Court awards $115,000.00 in attorney fees.