Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 22STCV23890, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23890    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 Wednesday, November 8, 2023

CASE NUMBER:                   22STCV23890

CASE NAME:                        Wescom Credit Union v. Kenneth E. Smith

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Wescom Credit Union

OPPOSING PARTY:             None

TRIAL DATE:                        Post Judgment

PROOF OF SERVICE:           OK

PROCEEDING:                      Motion for Attorney’s Fees

OPPOSITION:                        None Filed

REPLY:                                  None Filed

TENTATIVE:                         Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in the sum of $4,649.50 is granted.

Background

On July 25, 2022, Wescom Credit Union (“plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Kenneth E. Smith (“Defendant”) for (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Money Lent. Plaintiff obtained an order for Judgment against Defendant after a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The court entered Judgment on June 2, 2023, in the sum of $34,647.96.

Plaintiff now moves for attorney’s fees in the sum of $4,649.50. The Motion is unopposed.

motion for attorney’s fees

I.         Legal Standard

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right.¿ (CCP §§ 1032(a)(4), 1032(b), 1033.5.)¿Attorney’s fees may be recovered as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (CCP § 1033.5(a)(10).)¿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 the suit, the reasonable attorney 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.)¿¿¿

II.        Discussion

Plaintiff’s counsel requests attorney’s fees in the sum of $4,469.50. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts they are entitled to collect attorney’s fees pursuant to the attorney’s fees provision in the “Cost of Collection” section of the Revolving Line of Credit-Credit Agreement and Security Agreement (“Contract”). (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 8,9, Ex. 1.) The court agrees.

Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing rate for this matter is $225.00 per hour based on 22 years of practicing civil litigation. (Rocha Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel was also assisted by Jason Meyer, an associate who also has a billing rate of $225.00 per hour. (Id. ¶ 6.) A copy of Plaintiff’s counsel billing statement attests to Plaintiff’s incurring $4,649.50 in attorney’s fees through June 8, 2023, in relation to this action. (Id. ¶ 13, Ex. A, B.)

Having reviewed the billing records, the court finds that Plaintiff’s hourly billing rate is reasonable and that hours billed in this matter were also reasonable and necessary incurred in litigating this action.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in the sum of $4,649.50 is granted.

Plaintiff to give notice.