Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: SC129850, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC129850    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: O

Case Name:  City of Santa Monica v. Sung, et al.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff City of Santa Monica

RESP. PARTY:         Defendant Chiang Juei Sung

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff City of Santa Monica’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $144,210.00.  Plaintiff is the prevailing party in the action and is entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to the contract.

            Plaintiff City of Santa Monica (“the City”) is the prevailing party in cause of action based on contract, specifically the Deed Restriction and Development Agreement. (See 12-12-23 Judgement.) Both the Deed Restriction and the Development agreement provide for the prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs from the losing party. (Deed Restriction at p. 5, ¶ 8; Development Agreement, p. 30 ¶ 10.)

            The City provides a memorandum of costs totaling $6,713 (See Memorandum of Costs, p. 5.) The City declares they are seeking only a $550 hourly rate for hours worked by lead attorney Gary Rhodes (“Rhodes”), an attorney with thirty years of experience. (Rhodes Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5; Frank Decl., ¶ 3.) The Court finds that rate is reasonable. The City attaches exhibits with a description of the work done and time involved, and declares the hours were calculated after the fact, but are based on a careful review of the case files, court docket, and counsel’s calendar, erring on the side of “under-estimating and rounding-down.” (Rhoades Decl., ¶¶ 7–11, Ex. A.) The City declares the total hours to date is 262.2 which is a conservative estimate. (Rhoades Decl., ¶ 12.) The Court finds the time spent is reasonable.       

            The Court overrules Sung’s objections to any time spent in the first phase trial that was consolidated trial with the unlawful detainer action.  The issues in the first phase were fully intertwined with the City’s efforts to enforce the restrictions on the use of Sung’s unit.

            Therefore, the Court finds the loadstar fee requested of $144,210 is reasonable.  The Court finds awarding a multiplier under the facts and history of the litigation is unreasonable.  Therefore, the Court award’s the City attorney’s fee in the amount of $144,210 to be paid by Sung within 60 days of service of a signed order. 

The City is to prepare the proposed order.