Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiff WW Westwood, L.P. (“Landlord”) owns the property located at 10921 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles California.  Defendant Ebi Nikjoo D.D.S. (“Tenant”) leases Suite 601 of the property (the “Property”) pursuant to a written lease agreement (the “Lease”).  Tenant operates a general dentistry practice at the Property.  Tenant failed to pay rent.   

Tenant claims Landlord allegedly failed to provide maintenance and repair services, as required by the terms of the Lease.   Tenant claims this failure prevented him from providing dental services to his patients, which resulted in a loss of over $300,000, which he now seeks to offset against his rental obligation.  

The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Landlord.  The Court concluded Tenant lacked personal knowledge about the alleged failures to provide maintenance and repair services and his declaration was therefore, deficient and could not present a triable issue.  Tenant moved for reconsideration, which the Court denied.     

Landlord now brings the instant motion for attorneys’ fees in the sum of $237,257.50 as the prevailing party and pursuant to three provisions in the Lease that allow for recovery of attorneys’ fees.  Section 24.27 of the Lease provides that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party any such costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as may have been incurred, including any and all costs incurred in enforcing, perfecting and executing such judgment.”  Section 4.5 of the Lease provides that Landlord may recover “any attorneys’ fees incurred by Landlord by reason of Tenant’s failure to pay Rent[.]”  And Section 19.3 of the Lease provides Tenant shall pay to Landlord “all expenditures made and obligations incurred by Landlord in collecting or attempting to collect the Rent or in enforcing or attempting to enforce any rights of Landlord under this Lease or pursuant to law, including, without limitation, all legal fees and other amounts so expended.”      

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.)¿¿ 

“Under the lodestar method, a party who qualifies for a fee should recover for all hours reasonably spent unless special circumstances would render an award unjust.”  (Vo v. Las Virgenes Mun. Water Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 440, 446.)  As a matter of law, an attorney declaration is all that is required to support Plaintiff’s fees.  “An attorney’s testimony as to the number of hours worked is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records.”  (Mardirossian & Associates, Inc. v. Ersoff (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 257, 269.)   

 

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.¿ (Id.)¿ 

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

The Court sustains Objection No. 1 and overrules Objection Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 to the Declaration of Stacey Villagomez. 

ANALYSIS 

In an action on a contract,¿Code Civ. Proc. § 1717¿permits an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party.¿¿“[T]he party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered¿a greater relief in the action on the contract.”  (Id.)  Further, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1021, except as provided by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys is left to the agreement of the parties.   

Here, Section 24.27 of the Lease provides that “the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party any such costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as may have been incurred, including any and all costs incurred in enforcing, perfecting and executing such judgment.”  It is beyond dispute that Landlord is the prevailing party in this action.  Landlord prevailed on its motion for summary judgment, and again on Tenant’s motion for reconsideration.   

When, as in the case here, a party obtains a “simple, unqualified win” by completely prevailing on, or defeating, the contract claims in the action and the contract contains a provision for attorney fees, the successful party is entitled to attorney fees as a matter of right, eliminating the trial court’s discretion to deny fees under¿§ 1717.¿ (Hsu v. Abbara¿(1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 875–876.)  Accordingly, the Court must award attorneys’ fees to Landlord.   

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.  The attorneys who worked on this matter include Marissa Dennis, a senior partner at an hourly rate of $860, and Stacey Villagomez, a mid-level associate at an hourly rate of $645.  Dennis has been practicing for 17 years, specializing in real estate litigation.  She graduated from Loyola Law School.  Villagomez has been practicing for 6 years, also specializing in real estate litigation, and she graduated from USC.   

While Defendant argues these hourly rates are not reasonable and should be reduced to $200 for Dennis and $100 for Villagomez, he provides no evidentiary support.  In challenging attorneys’ fees as excessive, 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.¿ (Id.)¿ 

The Court concludes these hourly rates are well within the range of rates in other cases where courts have granted fee awards to attorneys with similar experience.  (Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020) 336 F.R.D. 588, 601¿(finding rates of $830 to $1,275 for partners reasonable);¿San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Productions (S.D. Cal. 2019) 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64418, at *39-*45¿(finding reasonable hourly rates of $760 for partners);¿Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co. (N.D. Cal. 2018) 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213045 at *39¿(rates from $650 to $1,250 for partners or senior counsel are reasonable);¿Kikkert v. Berryhill (S.D. Cal. 2018) 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127237 at *5¿(finding hourly rate of $943 reasonable, citing other decisions in the district approving rates from $656 to $886);¿Makaeff v. Trump Univ. LLC (S.D. Cal. 2015) 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46749 at *11-*15¿(finding reasonable rates of $600 to $825 for partners); Universal Electronics Inc. v. Universal Remote Control Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2015) 130 F.Supp.3d 1331, 1337 (finding eight years ago, in 2015, partner hourly rate of $768 was reasonable and noting that the rates database available for Los Angeles and Orange Counties showed that average partner rates at “pricey” law firms ranged from $715 to $1055 per hour).) 

However, the Court concludes the time expended of 355.3 hours for litigating this action is not reasonable.  The fees are excessive given the total back rent owed was only $168,264.14.  The Court reduces the award to $100,000 which acknowledges that 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 judgment, opposing a motion for reconsideration, opposing a motion to quash, and addressing several discovery disputes.   

Plaintiff also seeks costs totaling $14,839.90.  The costs include $2,109.75 in filing and motion fees, $8,308.15 in deposition costs, $1,480.60 in service of process fees, $2,441.40 in messenger fees, and $500 in mediation fees.  Defendant did not move to tax the costs, and the Court concludes these costs are reasonable.   

In sum, the Court concludes that under the lodestar approach, Landlord is entitled to $100,000 in attorneys’ fees.  The Court also awards costs in the amount of $14,839.90.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.  Plaintiff is awarded $100,000 in fees and $14,839.90 in costs.   

 

DATED: January 12, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court