Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20BBCV00504, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20BBCV00504 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
MOVING PARTY: Defendant
Guo Zhou
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Qing
Fang
SERVICE: Filed June 12, 2024
OPPOSITION: Filed August 21, 2024
REPLY: Filed August
21, 2024
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant’s counsel
moves for Plaintiff to pay attorneys’ fees totaling $32,025.00, pursuant to a
contract between the parties.
BACKGROUND
This case arose out of Plaintiff’s
complaint for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
unjust enrichment. This Court found Defendant to be the prevailing party in the
present action after a one day non-jury trial on May 7, 2024.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s motion
for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED in the amount of $29,875.00.
LEGAL STANDARD
Civil Code section 1717 states in part:
“(a) 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.
[¶] · [¶]
(b)(1) The court, upon notice and motion by party, shall determine who is
the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or
not the suit proceeds to final judgment. Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater
relief in the action on the contract. The court may also determine that there
is no party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section.
(2) Where an action has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant
to a settlement of the case, there shall be no prevailing party for purposes of
this section.”
Civ. Code § 1717; see
also Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(10)(A) (attorneys’ fees authorized by contract
are recoverable as costs under Civ. Proc. Code § 1032). Reasonable attorneys’
fees shall be fixed by the court and shall be an element of the costs of suit. (Civ.
Code § 1717(a).)
DISCUSSION
A. Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees
Plaintiff does not dispute the validity of the contract or that Defendant
is the prevailing party. Plaintiff
instead argues that Defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees because of unclean
hands. This argument is unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s
other argument is that the fees should be adjusted downward due to the case’s
simple procedural history. Neither side
litigated any pretrial motions nor were depositions conducted.
In this case the Defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees pursuant
to Civil Code section 1717. There is a signed contract, i.e., the franchise
agreement, between Plaintiff and Defendant that allows the recovery of attorney
fees in the event of “any dispute between the parties . . . the non-prevailing
party will pay the prevailing party all costs and expenses, including
attorneys’ fees incurred by the prevailing party . . . .” Motion, Exh. 1 ¶ 20. Judgment
was entered for Defendant and thus, Defendant is the prevailing party in this
action.
B. Amount of Attorneys’ Fees
When determining a reasonable
attorneys’ fees award using the lodestar method, the court begins by deciding
the reasonable hours the prevailing party’s attorney spent on the case and
multiplies that number by the prevailing hourly rate for private attorneys in
the community who conduct noncontingent litigation of the same type. Doppes
v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 998; see
also Environmental Protection Info. Ctr. v. California Dep’t of Forestry &
Fire Protection (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 217, 248. The court may
rely on personal knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting a
reasonable hourly rate. Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v. Monroy (2013)
215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.
As an initial matter, the court
finds Defendant’s counsel’s hourly rates reasonable (Attorney Hanley $450-500
per hour). Having reviewed and considered Defendant’s evidence, and having
presided in similar cases, the court finds these hourly rates reasonable for
attorneys in the community who conduct litigation of the same type as in this
case.
The court has read and considered Plaintiff’s
arguments, Defendant’s arguments, and Defendant’s counsel’s invoice (Motion,
Exh. 2).
Defendant identifies a baseline
lodestar of $32,025.00.
Plaintiff attacks the billed hours,
contending the case has a simple procedural history with no motions and no
depositions. The Court considers this argument and finds some time not
compensable. First, the Court finds that the time spent on 07/21/2023 for
“Draft mediation Brief for Court mediation” is not compensable because the
Court does not see a mediation brief filed by Defendant. Accordingly, $750.00
is subtracted. Second, the Court scrutinizes the time spent on 04/26/2024 for
“Trial preparation, prepare witness list, exhibit list, trial brief” as
excessive services as trial preparation matters appeared quite a few times in
the invoices. Accordingly, it is not compensable and $1,400.00 is subtracted.
In total, $2,150.00 is subtracted.
Otherwise, the number of hours is
reasonable. Defendant’s counsel expended those hours over three-plus years of
litigation, which included preparation of Defendant’s answer, discovery, court
appearances, conferences, efforts to resolve the case, and trial. The Court
awards Defendant’s counsel $29,875.00 in attorneys’ fees.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees
is GRANTED in part, as follows:
Defendant’s baseline
Lodestar: $32,025.00
Removal of
unrecoverable items: ($2,150.00)
Total Fees &
Expenses: $29,875.00
Defendant’s
counsel is awarded $29,875.00.
Dated: August 29,
2024 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit. alhdeptx@lacourt.org