Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2020-01147853, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff ROIC Santa Ana, LLC’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in part.

“California adheres to the American rule, ‘which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees.’” (Cassim v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 806, quoting Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278.)  The rule has been codified in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021 and 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10).  

Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a) provides that: “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.  Where a contract provides for attorney’s fees, as set forth above, that provision shall be construed as applying to the entire contract, unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and the fact of that representation is specified in the contract.”  A court uses traditional contract interpretation principles in assessing the extent of the parties’ rights to recover attorney’s fees under a contract.  (People ex rel. Dept. of Corps. v. Speedee Oil Change Sys., Inc. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 424, 429.)  For purposes of Civil Code section 1717, the “prevailing party” is the party who recovered greater relief in the action on the contract.  (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (b)(1).) 

Here, a court trial was held on March 28, 2022.  Judgment was for Plaintiff against Defendant Rita Aurora Gonzalez.  The lease agreement provides for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the prevailing party.  (Complaint, Exh. 1; Trial Exh. 1, art. 28.7, at p. 36.)  Plaintiff is the prevailing party. 

The remaining question is the amount of fees to be awarded Petitioner.  Courts apply a lodestar method to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees.  (Meister v. U.C. Regents (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449.)  The court determines a lodestar figure based on a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved.  (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48.) Additionally, a trial court has broad discretion to determine the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees, as an experienced trial judge is in the best position to decide [the] value of professional services rendered in court. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)

To determine reasonable attorneys’ fees, the court should consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and employed in handling the matter, the attention given, the success of the attorney’s efforts, the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed.  (Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 659.)

Here, counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable.  Defendant did not oppose the motion and did not identify any problematic billing entries.  However, the court notes that it appears that there were entries for work performed on an unlawful detainer action, which is not the instant action and should have been recovered in the unlawful detainer action.  The billing entries also included travel time.  Amounts based upon anticipated hours for reviewing an opposition and drafting a reply, were not incurred.  Accordingly, the court has made reduction in time as to these entries. 

Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees of $9,356.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.