Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 21SMCV02005, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV02005    Hearing Date: April 5, 2024    Dept: 205

I

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Beverly Hills Courthouse | Department 205

Background

This action arises from the breach of a lease agreement concerning rental property located at 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard, Unit 3403, Los Angeles, California 90067 (the “Subject Property”). On December 23, 2021, Plaintiff SM 10000 Property, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Cristina Pecci (“Pecci”), Justin Ligeri (“Ligeri”), Cheyenne Brands, L.L.C. (“Cheynne”), and DOES 1 through 100, for breach of contract.

On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) in unlawful detainer against Defendants Cristina Pecci, Justin Ligeri, Cheyenne Brands L.L.C., Emily Muradyan, Larisa Pogosyan, and DOES 1 to 10, which arises from the failure of Defendants to pay rent pursuant to the lease agreement between the parties.

On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Pecci, Ligeri, and Cheyenne, alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract.

On December 11, 2023, non-jury trial commenced with only Defendant Pecci appearing at trial. (See 12/11/23 and 02/09/24 Minute Orders.) Defendant Ligeri did not appear at trial and Defendant Cheyenne was in default and did not appear. (02/09/24 Minute Order.) On February 9, 2024, the Court issued an order regarding its finding of facts and conclusions of law and statement of decision. (02/09/24 Minute Order.) The Court found that Plaintiff proved all the elements of its claims for breach of contract. (02/09/24 Minute Order at p. 2.) The Court awarded judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Pecci, Ligeri, and Cheyenne, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $446,992.91. (02/09/24 Minute Order at p. 5.)

On March 5, 2024, the Court entered judgment in this matter in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Pecci, Ligeri, and Cheyenne.

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served a memorandum of costs, in which Plaintiff seeks costs in the amount of $7,653.16.

On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Post Judgment. Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $17,653.16. The motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action and the lease agreement between the parties provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party.

On March 18, 2024, Defendant Pecci filed an opposition to the motion, to which Plaintiff replied on March 27, 2024.

Legal Standard/Applicable Law

            “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.” (Civ. Code § 1717, subd. (a).) “Where a contract provides for attorney’s fees . . . 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.” (Civ. Code § 1717, subd. (a).)

            A prevailing party is “the party with a net monetary recovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).)   

Analysis

In support of the motion, Plaintiff presents the declaration of Nicole Browne (“Browne”), who provides a copy of the lease agreement giving rise to this action. (Browne Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. 1.) Paragraph 34 of the lease agreement provides that “[i]n the event of any litigation to enforce this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees, not to exceed a total of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), and its costs of litigation.” (Browne Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. 1 at ¶ 34.)

Plaintiff’s counsel, Thomas F. Olsen (“Olsen”), declares that on December 11, 2024, trial in this matter was held. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 5.) The Court issued its minute order on February 9, 2024, which contained the Court’s finding of facts and conclusions of law. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 5.) To date, Plaintiff has incurred $93,675.00 in attorneys’ fees and $7,653.16 in costs for bringing this action to enforce the lease. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 6.) Counsel declares that the fees and costs are current as of February 14, 2024, with the exception of $195.50 in attorneys’ fees that have not yet been billed. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs include litigation and motion practice such as bringing this action, a fully briefed and litigated motion for summary judgment, discovery motions, and by trial in this matter wherein judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 6.) Counsel provides billing invoices pertaining to tasks completed in this action. (Olsen Decl., ¶ 6; Exhs. 1-1.22.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action as judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Ligeri, Pecci, and Cheyenne. The lease agreement giving rise to this action explicitly states that the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorneys’ fees in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00, as well as its costs of litigation. Counsel has provided billing records substantiating the work done in this action.  

Defendant Pecci’s sole argument in opposition to the motion is that Plaintiff filed its motion for attorneys’ fees and costs before entry of judgment. (See Opp’n at p. 1: 23-25.) The Court finds that such contention is misplaced. Plaintiff filed the instant motion after judgment was entered. Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs is therefore timely under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(a)(1).

Defendant Pecci has not presented any substantive argument in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant Pecci has not presented any legal authority to rebut Plaintiff’s contention that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the lease agreement. Defendant Pecci does not dispute the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees and costs. “Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4^th 1210, 1215.)

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Post Judgment.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Post Judgment.

Dated: April 5, 2024

__________________________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court