Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

GALOIS GROUP

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES FILED BY DEFENDANT GALOIS GROUP, LLC

Defendant’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount below.

Moving party to PROVIDE notice.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On October 2, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

On October 20, 2023, the Court entered judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff. 

On November 1, 2023, Defendant filed a Memorandum of Costs.

On December 11, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for attorney’s fees. 

On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

On April 25, 2024, Defendant filed a reply.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Defendant moves for attorney’s fees on the grounds that they are entitled to attorney’s fees under their contract with Plaintiff. The parties do not dispute that fees and costs may be awarded to Defendant under the parties’ contract.

Unless a statute provides for them, (e.g., Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032, et seq.), the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.¿(Code Civ. Proc., section 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, section 1717, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., sections 1032; 1033.5, subd. (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 attorney fees.¿ (Civ. Code, section 1717, subds. (a), (b).)¿ A party moving for attorneys’ fees as an element of costs shall serve and file the notice before or at the same time the party serves and files the memorandum of costs; if only attorney fees are claimed as costs, the party shall serve and file the notice within the time specified in the Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700 for filing a memorandum of costs.¿ (Cal. Rules Court. 3.1702; Gunlock Corp. v. Walk on Water, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1303, fn. 1.)¿¿¿  ¿¿¿ 

“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.)¿ “[A] computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.”¿ (Margolin v. Reg’l Planning Comm’n (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.)¿ The court may then adjust the lodestar figure based on consideration of factors specific to the case, 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].)¿  

 

In challenging attorney fees as excessive because the moving party claimed too many hours of work, the challenging party bears the burden of pointing 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 the fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.¿ (Ibid.)¿¿ 

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks $84,485 for attorney’s fees on the grounds that the parties’ contract allows the prevailing party to recover them. The parties dispute whether Defendant’s counsel’s billing was reasonable.

Objections

Defendant objects to the declaration of A. Grant Phelan submitted in support of the motion for attorney’s fees. The objections are OVERRULED.

Reasonableness of Hours Billed

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s fees are unreasonable because this was an uncomplicated matter, no depositions were taken, and the case was resolved on a motion for summary judgment with little other motion practice.

A prevailing party’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred.  (Hadley v.¿Krepel¿(1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) “In challenging attorney 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.”  (Lunada¿Biomedical v. Nunez¿(2014) 240 Cal.App.4th 459, 488.) 

Defendant’s counsel provides a detailed account of his billing. (Tran Decl., Exh. A.) Defendant also applied courtesy discounts to its request for fees, voluntarily reducing fees by $6,639. (Tran Decl., ¶10.)

Plaintiff alleges the time billed for the following entries was unreasonably high:

Date Description Biller Rate Time Total

2/1/21 Preparation of meet and confer email relative to proposed demurrer JEG 480 1.4 $673

9/15/21 Prepare Meet and Confer Letter to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and email correspondence re: same. (about Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to discovery) JEG 480 0.1 $48

12/16/21                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Review and respond to email from Michael Kluchin relative to the status of this matter and PR JEG 480 .5 240

7/13/22                  Prepare and draft ex parte application to have the court continue the trial date so that the motion for summary judgment can be heard under the statutory notice requirements BQT 455 3.3 $1501.50

1/9/23 Review files and collect evidence for motion for summary judgment BQT 495 3.6 $1,782

1/16/23                                                                                                                                                                                  Continue review of files and collect evidence for motion for summary judgment BQT 495 2.7 $1,336.50

1/20/23 Review dockets of various matters filed by LA Fitness for status and use in motion for summary judgment BQT 495 0.9 $445

1/23/23 Conduct research for preparation of motion for summary judgment. BQT 495 4.3 $2,128.50

1/24/23 Continue conducting research for preparation of motion for summary judgment; prepare and draft motion for summary judgment. BQT 495 5.3 $2,623.50

1/25/23 Review new case relative to liability for rent not being excused by pandemic. JEG 500 0.3 $150

1/25/23 Continue preparing and draft motion for summary judgment and supporting papers. BQT 495 5.1 $2,524.50

1/26/23 Continue preparing motion for summary judgment and supporting papers BQT 495 4.8 $2,376

1/27/23 Continue preparing and draft motion for summary judgment and supporting papers BQT 495 3.3 $1,633.50

1/28/23 Continue drafting motion and supporting papers for motion for summary judgment; review fitness's other motions in anticipation of potential defenses BQT 495 6.9 $3,415.50

1/30/23 Strategy relative to status of motion for summary judgment and grounds for same and finalizing same JEG 500 0.3 $150

1/30/23 Continue drafting and preparing motion for summary judgment BQT 495 4.4 $2,178

1/31/23 Review and assist with preparing motion for summary. JEG 500 0.2 $100

Plaintiff objects to two hours of time Defendant’s counsel spent on meet and confer correspondence regarding discovery and other matters. The Court finds that these entries are not unreasonable because communicating with opposing counsel during litigation is a commonly billed activity and the time spent on each entry was not unreasonable. 

Plaintiff objects to the approximately 40 hours Defendant’s counsel spent on its motion for summary judgment. However, the motion involved novel issues related to the COVID-19 eviction moratorium and complicated issues of contract interpretation. The Court finds that, under the circumstances, the time spent on the motion was not unreasonable. Additionally, none of the entries appear duplicative. Rather, two attorneys billed for different tasks related to the motion. These entries are not unreasonable.

Finally, Plaintiff objects to the 3.3 hours spent on an ex parte motion to continue trial. The Court finds this entry was not unreasonable. 

Accordingly, no time will be taxed from Defendant’s request for fees.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant erroneously billed $342.65 for other unrelated cases. Defendant concedes these entries were included in error and waives the charges. (Reply p.5.)

The court awards attorney fees in the amount of $82,142.35

DATED: May 2, 2024 

________________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court