Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 21STCV20055, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants and Cross-Complainants HUMBERTO ALVAREZ and FABIOLA ALVAREZ (collectively, “Defendants”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. The motion is unopposed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff Precision General Contractors, Inc. dba Precision Water &

Restoration (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants, alleging a cause of action for breach of contract. The contract was for Plaintiff, who was a general contractor, to provide abatement, mitigation and construction services on Defendants’ home that had been damaged by water intrusion following heavy winds that damaged the roof of the home. On October 15, 2021, Defendants answered Plaintiff’s Complaint, asserting a general denial and various affirmative defenses, and also filed a cross-complaint (“Cross-Complaint”) against Plaintiff and its owner Ivan Flores, which alleged eleven separate causes of action.

A bench trial was conducted on January 12 and 22, 2024. Following trial and submission of closing argument post-trial briefs, the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision on June 3, 2024. On July 10, 2024, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on the Complaint, and on certain causes of action in the Cross-Complaint.

Defendants now file this motion requesting an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $67,155 and costs in the amount of $4,840.74 (the “Motion”).

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(10), a prevailing party may recover attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law. Civil Code section 1717(a) provides “[i]n 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.”

“The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) “The basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.” (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.) “The law is clear, however, that an award of attorney fees may be based on counsel's declarations, without production of detailed time records.” (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.)

In the Court's Final Statement of Decision, the Court found that Defendants are the prevailing party on both the Complaint and the Cross-Complaint, and that Defendants were entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to a Motion for Attorneys' Fees to be filed by Defendants. (Final Statement of Decision, ¶¶ 15-16.)

The fee request is supported by attorney Lawrence Szabo's declaration, which attaches a Schedule of Time and Charges (Exhibit 3) and a Memorandum of Costs (Exhibit 4). (Declaration of Lawrence Szabo (“Szabo Decl.”), ¶¶ 4,7; Exhs. 3, 4.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in [her] court.” (Ibid.) Szabo billed Defendants at $400.00 per hour, which the Court finds to be a reasonable hourly rate in the Los Angeles area for similar work. In accordance with the Schedule of Time and Charges, the total attorneys’ fees requested by Defendants is $63,560. (Szabo Decl., ¶ 22; Exh. 3) In addition, Defendants have incurred charges in the amount of $2,995 for the preparation of this Motion, and declares an anticipated amount of $600 in connection with the review of any opposition, drafting of reply and appearance at the hearing for the Motion. (Id., ¶ 23; Exh. 3.) Pursuant to the Memorandum of Costs, Defendants are also requesting an award of costs incurred in the amount of $4,840.74. (Id., ¶ 24; Exh. 4.)

The court has reviewed the Schedule of Time and Charges submitted by Defendants and finds the hours claimed reasonable considering the work performed and the needs of the case. Since there was no opposition, however, the court strikes the request for $600 representing anticipated charges in responding to an opposition.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED. The Court awards in favor of Defendant attorneys’ fees of $66,555 and costs of $4,840.74, for a total amount of $71,395.74.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court