Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff American Commercial Equities Three, LLC 

RESPONDING PARTY:  Defendant Marjan Sarshar 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a landlord guarantor dispute.  Plaintiff American Commercial Equities Three, LLC (“Landlord”) owns real property located at 8910 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, California (the “Premises”).  Landlord and Kreation WEHO, LLC (“Tenant”) entered into a written lease agreement (“Lease”) for the Premises.  Concurrently with Tenant’s execution of the Lease, Defendant Marjan Sarshar (“Guarantor”) executed a written guaranty (“Guaranty”) of the Lease.  (UMF No. 8.)  By way of the Guaranty, Guarantor guaranteed the full performance of the Lease obligations of Tenant.  Tenant failed to pay rent, and pursuant to the Guaranty, Guarantor is liable for Tenant’s obligations under the Lease.   

On January 23, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication and awarded Plaintiff principal in the sum of $90,962.55 and prejudgment interest in the sum of $18,739.84.  The Court also determined Plaintiff was entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees and costs under the Lease and Guaranty.  The Court entered judgment on February 1, 2023. 

Plaintiff now brings the instant motion to fix the amount of attorneys’ fees in the sum of $24,101.00 as the prevailing party and pursuant to Section 28 of the Lease which provides that the prevailing party in any litigation relating to any provisions of the Lease or any default under the Lease may recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees.  Sections 1 and 11 of the Guaranty incorporate the provisions of the Lease into the Guaranty, rendering the attorneys’ fees provision enforceable against the Guarantor.  No opposition was filed.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Unless they are specifically provided for by statute (e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1032, et seq.), an award of attorneys’ fees is left to the agreement of the parties.¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.)¿ The prevailing party on a contract, which specifically provides for attorney fees and costs incurred to enforce the agreement, is entitled to reasonable attorney fees in addition to other costs.¿ (Civ. Code § 1717(a); CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5(a)(10)(A).)¿ The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine the prevailing party and shall fix, as an element of the costs of suit, the reasonable attorneys’ fees.¿ (Civ. Code § 1717(a), (b).)¿  

“It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”¿ (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)   

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily “begins with the ‘lodestar’ [method], i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”¿ (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)¿ 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.¿ (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 (discussing factors relevant to proper attorneys’ fees award).)¿ The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include “(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, and (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.”¿ (Mountjoy v. Bank of Am. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 271.)¿¿ 

In challenging attorneys’ fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence.¿ (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guaranty Assoc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)¿ General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.¿ (Ibid.)¿ 

ANALYSIS 

Code Civ. Proc. Section 1033.5(a)(10)(A) provides that attorneys’ fees are allowable as costs when authorized by contract.  Section 28 of the Lease provides in relevant part: “If at any time after the date hereof either Landlord or Tenant institutes any action or proceeding against the other relating to provisions of this Lease or any default hereunder, the losing party in such action or proceeding shall reimburse the prevailing party for its reasonable expenses of attorneys’ fees and all actual costs and disbursements …”.  Sections 1 and 11 of the Guaranty incorporate the attorneys’ fees provision of the Lease into the Guaranty.  Plaintiff is the prevailing party, as it won on its motion for summary adjudication, and it is accordingly entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Guaranty. 

To determine the reasonable amount of fees to be awarded, the Court begins with the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.  Plaintiff’s counsel is a graduate of USC Gould School of Law in 1986 and has over 35 years experience with his primary practice devoted to business and real estate litigation.  He initially billed at an hourly rate of $300 per hour which was increased to $325 per hour in January 2022.  His paralegal billed at an hourly rate of $205 per hour.   

These hourly rates are well within the range of rates in other cases where courts have granted fee awards to attorneys with similar experience.  (See, e.g., Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal. App. 5th 24, 32 (using associate hourly rate of $300); Gomez v. Fca Us Llc, 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 6995 at *8 (finding reasonable senior associate rate of $300 per hour); Curran v. Sch. of the Sacred Heart - San Francisco, 2014 Cal. Super. LEXIS 24939 at *2 (hourly rate of $395 for associate is reasonable); Blacksher v. United States Sec. Assocs., 2008 Cal. Super. LEXIS 1464 (hourly rate of $500 for associate is reasonable); White Winston Select Asset Fund Series Fund Mp-18 v. Musclepharm Corp., 2021 Cal. Super. LEXIS 65347 at *14 (hourly rate of $520 for associate is reasonable); Cox v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2022 Cal. Super. LEXIS 5511 at * 3 (hourly rate of $300 for associate is reasonable).) 

The Court also finds that the time expended of 74.7 hours for litigating this action, including filing a motion for summary adjudication and this motion for attorneys’ fees is reasonable.  While the issues in the case were not complex or novel, it was still a contested action involving the filing of a motion for summary adjudication and several motions to compel. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $24,101.00.   

 

DATED: March 17, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court