Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01357, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01357    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      February 1, 2024                                             TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         STRATA PASADENA SHOPS, LLC, v. BYUNG SUL JOO, and DOES 1-10, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV01357

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Byung Sul Joo

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Strata Pasadena Shops, LLC

SERVICE:                              Filed November 14, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed January 18, 2024

REPLY:                                   No reply filed.  

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant moves attorney’s fees totaling $26,675.00.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Strata Pasadena Shops, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) unlawful detainer claim against Defendant Byung Sul Joo (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed to a 10-year lease term for property located at 245 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, California 91101. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant agreed to pay $10,600.00 per month. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on May 26, 2023.  

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED for a total of $23,250.

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 August 17, 2023, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. On October 17, 2023, judgment was entered in favor of Defendant. Defendant was determined to be the prevailing party.

Paragraph 17.4 of the agreement at issue in this case provides: “In the event that either Party hereto brings any action or files any proceeding In connection with the enforcement of its respective rights under this Lease or as a consequence of any breach by the other Party of its obligations under this Lease, the prevailing Party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to have its attorneys' fees and costs paid by the losing Party.” (FAC Exhibit A at p. 32.)

Defendant now moves attorney’s fees totaling $26,675.00.

            “[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.) Once the lodestar figure is calculated, a court may adjust the award based on factors such as “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action.” (Ibid.)

            Defendant seeks fees at a rate of $500 per hour for 45 hours worked on this case with an additional 5 hours of work anticipated for the present motion. (Jacobs Decl. ¶ 8.)

“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. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice. Failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal.” (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)

            Plaintiff vehemently argues that Defendant requested fees should be denied in its entirety because Plaintiff claims Defendant is not the prevailing party here. Plaintiff’s arguments are rejected. The court’s order specifically provides that Defendant is the prevailing party and is entitled to make a motion for fees. Plaintiff also contends, without any support, that Defendant’s motion to quash and demurrers were completely unnecessary and should be removed from the present calculation. Plaintiff’s argument lacks evidentiary or legal support to establish that the hours sought were excessive or improper.

            The court finds the lodestar amount is calculate at a at a rate of $500 per hour for 45 hours worked for a total of $22,500. However, the court finds the reasonable number of hours for the present motion to be 1.5 hours at a rate of $500 per hour for an additional $750. Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is granted for a total of $23,250.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is GRANTED for a total of $23,250.

            Moving party to give notice.

Dated:   February 1, 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