Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2021-00008715-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 27, 2023

09/29/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00008715-CU-BC-CTL G10 GALUPPO LAW VS. MALAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Attorney Fees, 08/01/2023

The Motion (ROA # 342) of Judgment Creditors G10 GALUPPO LAW and LOUIS A. GALUPPO for an award of $480,942.52 in attorney fees to be assessed jointly and severally against judgment debtors NINUS MALAN; MONARCH MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, INC.; SAN DIEGO UNITED HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC; FLIP MANAGEMENT, LLC; BALBOA AVE COOPERATIVE; CALIFORNIA CANNABIS GROUP; DEVILISH DELIGHTS, INC.; and AMERICAN LENDING AND HOLDINGS, LLC is GRANTED.

Civil Code 1717, Code Civ. Proc. 1032 and 1033.5.

Plaintiff and Judgment Creditors' Request (ROA # 369) for judicial notice is GRANTED.

The First Amended Judgment (ROA # 330) states: 'Under Code of Civil Procedure §1032 and Civil Code § 1717, Louis A. Galuppo and G10 Galuppo Law, APLC are the prevailing parties' entitled to an award of attorney fees. Further, the attorney fees they now seek do not appear to include 'fees incurred in preparation for or in the course of the fee arbitration proceeding.' Bus. & Prof. Code 6203(c).

The hourly rates of the attorneys and paralegals that billed on this action are set forth in the declaration of Daniel Watts at paragraph 21. These rates range from $150 to $225 per hour for paralegals and law clerks, and $400 to $595 per hour for attorneys. These hourly rates are reasonable. Importantly, the opposition does not argue that these hourly rates are unreasonable.

The Watts declaration and attached billing records support the total hours incurred. The total hours incurred are high given that no trial occurred in this action. However, as explained within the memorandum at pages 13 - 14, this action was nonetheless complex and lengthy involving a multitude of 'moving parts.' The manner in which some of the judgment debtors defended this action added to this complexity. Thus, the total hours incurred appear to be reasonable and incurred in good faith.

The opposition argues the total number of hours incurred is 'outrageous.' The opposition also generally references duplicate entries, unreasonably frequent intraoffice meetings, and unreasonable time incurred for 'case analysis, pleading index updates, template creation, administrative entries, etc.' However, the opposition fails to reference specific time entries claimed to be unreasonable or duplicative. As a result, the judgment debtors have not satisfied their burden, and the Court is unable to address this argument. This Court cannot discount or reduce the proposed fee award by an arbitrary amount.

The opposition also appears to argue that the time entries have been unreasonably redacted such that the judgment debtors are unable to oppose this Motion. However, the Court has reviewed the time Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3003598 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  G10 GALUPPO LAW VS. MALAN [IMAGED]  37-2021-00008715-CU-BC-CTL entries attached to the Watts declaration as 'Exhibit A.' The item descriptions are reasonable and sufficiently detailed. Also, redactions of the item descriptions are minimal. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3003598