Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00223, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00223    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:    September 14, 2022                             TRIAL DATE:  May 16, 2022

CASE:                         PETER SALGUERO, an individual, v. YI HE, an individual, and DOES 1-50, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 21GDCV00223

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:              Plaintiff Peter Salguero

RESPONDING PARTY:     No response filed.

SERVICE:                             Filed August 2, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees totaling $9,120.00.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Peter Salguero (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on February 17, 2021, alleging that Defendant Yi He (“Defendant”) failed to repay an investment pursuant to a promissory note.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,120.00 is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “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.” (Civ. Code section 1717, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

            On May 16, 2022, a non-jury trial was conducted before this Court. On June 3, 2022, judgment was entered on behalf of Plaintiff, where Plaintiff was awarded $66,161.57 in damages. The order provided Plaintiff was entitled to a recovery of attorney’s fees.

            The promissory note between the parties provided that “All costs, expenses and expenditures including, and without limitation, the complete legal costs incurred by Peter Salguero in enforcing this Note as a result of any default by Yi He, will be added to the principal then outstanding and will immediately be paid by Yi He.” (Nong Decl. ¶ 8, Exhibit 2 ¶ 4.) Here, Plaintiff was the prevailing party pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.

            “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (Ibid.)

            Plaintiff seeks $9,120.00 in attorney’s fees. (Nong Decl. ¶ 6, Exhibit 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel billed 27.40 hours at $300 per hour for a total of $8,220. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also seeks an additional three (3) hours billed at $300 for preparing and arguing this motion. (Ibid.) The number of hours expended by Plaintiff’s counsel and the hourly rate are both reasonable.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,120.00 is granted.

            Moving party to provide notice.

Dated:   September 14, 2022                          ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.  Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org