Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV11626, Date: 2023-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11626    Hearing Date: September 13, 2023    Dept: 32

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

BACKGROUND

            On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff 7906 Santa Monica, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for breach of lease and breach of guaranty of lease against Defendants Lagree Underground, Inc. and Eric J. Grenier (“Defendants”). The complaint stems from a lease agreement between landlord Plaintiff and tenant Defendant Lagree Underground, which runs a pilates studio at the location. Defendant Grenier is the guarantor of Lagree’s lease with Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defenant Lagree defaulted on its rent obligations and that Grenier defaulted on his guaranty. Defendants maintain that their performance was rendered impossible or frustrated by government shutdowns in response to the COVID pandemic.

            On May 1, 2023, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff.  On May 11, 2023, a judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. 

LEGAL STANDARD

The prevailing party in “any action on a contract” shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to enforce that contract where the contract specifically provides for attorney’s fees.  (California Civil Code , Section 1717(a).)  “When a party obtains a simple, unqualified victory by completely prevailing on or defeating all contract claims in the action and the contract contains a provision for attorney fees, section 1717 entitles the successful party to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in prosecution or defense of those claims.  (Scott Co. of California v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1103, 1109.)  “[I]n deciding whether there is a ‘party prevailing on the contract,’ the trial court is to compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties' demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources.”  (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 863, 876.)

In the present case, Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees incurred in bringing the breach of contract action. 

ANALYSIS

            Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $33,618.00. 

            A. Entitlement to Attorney Fees

Plaintiff contends that it was the prevailing party in this action because the court entered judgment in its favor.  The Court agrees.  As such, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action entitled to a reasonable amount of attorney fees.  It is also undisputed that the contract in question authorized attorney fees to the prevailing party. As such, pursuant to California Civil Code, Section 1717, plaintiff is entitled to recover its attorney fees.

B. Reasonableness of Fees

1.  Reasonable Hourly Rates

Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals billed between $110 and $495 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 hour rate charged by Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals is the reasonable hourly rate in this case.

2. Hours Reasonably Expended

The total number of billable hours claimed by Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals is hours 87.1 hours.

            Defendant does not dispute the hours spent on the case by Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals.

The Court finds that the reasonable hours spent by Plaintiff’s attorneys and paralegals in this matter are 87.1 hours. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED.  The Court awards Plaintiff $33,618.00 in attorney fees.