Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

cpc six, llc,

Plaintiff,

levon mikayelyan,

Defendant.

Case No.: 22BBCV00033

Hearing Date: September 9, 2022

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for attorney’s fees

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiff CPC Six, LLC (“Plaintiff”) commenced this unlawful detainer action on January 18, 2022. The commercial property at issue is located at 1221 N. San Fernando Blvd., Burbank, CA 91504. Plaintiff alleges that it entered into a 5-year commercial lease with Defendant Levon Mikayelyan (“Defendant”) on August 13, 2018. Plaintiff alleges it served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit on January 6, 2022 and a 10-day notice to cure covenants or quit on January 13, 2022. Plaintiff seeks possession of the property, past due rent of $90,000, damages for each day that Defendant remains in possession, reasonable attorney’s fees, and forfeiture of the agreement.

On February 16, 2022, the default of “ALL OCCUPANTS [PER C.C.P. SECTION 415.46]” was entered.

B. Relevant Background

On May 2, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

On May 3, 2022, the Court signed the Judgment, such that Plaintiff was awarded possession and restitution of, and forfeiture of any lease or rental agreement at, the premises commonly known as 1221 North San Fernando Boulevard, Burbank, California 91504 in Los Angeles County against Defendant, as well as to all unnamed occupants. The Court also awarded judgment against Defendant in unpaid rent in the sum of $90,000, plus daily rental value damages at the rate of $258.33 per day from January 15, 2022 through entry of judgment. The Court allowed Plaintiff to seek costs of suit and attorney’s fees by memorandum of costs and noticed motion, respectively.

C. Motion on Calendar

On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed two versions of its motion for attorney’s fees, one at 12:27 p.m. and the other at 1:04 p.m. The Court will consider the merits of the later-filed motion.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

Civil Code § 1717 states that a party may recover attorney’s fees when the party prevails in an action based on a contract that provides for the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees. The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine who is the prevailing party on the contract for purposes of section 1717, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment. (Civ. Code, § 1717(b)(1).)

The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The award of attorney fees under section 1717 is governed by equitable principles. (Id.)
The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the "lodestar," i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (Id.) California courts have consistently held that 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. (Id.) The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Id.) Such an approach anchors the trial court's analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney's services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees in the amount of $23,640.

A. Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to the Lease Agreement and Civil Code, § 1717. (See George Decl., Ex. 1 [Lease Agreement].) Paragraph 31 of the Lease Agreement states the following:

31. Attorney Fees. If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding involving the Premises, whether founded in tort, contract or equity, or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereinafter defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Such fees may be awarded in the same suit or recovered in a separate suit, whether or not such action or proceeding is pursued to decision or judgment. The term “Prevailing Party” shall include, without limitation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought, as the case may be, whether by compromise, settlement, judgment or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker of its claim or defenses. The attorneys’ fee award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be such as to fully reimburse all attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred. In addition, Lessor shall be entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the preparation and service of notices of Default and consultations in connection therewith, whether or not legal action is subsequently commenced in connection with such Default or resulting Breach ($200 is a reasonable minimum per occurrence for such services and consultation).”

(Lease Agreement, ¶ 31.)

Here, the Lease Agreement provides for a basis of attorney’s fees for this action. Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action as Judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor following its motion for summary judgment, such that Plaintiff was entitled to possession of the premises and damages in the form of unpaid rent. As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to fees pursuant to the parties’ contract.

B. Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff seeks $23,640 in attorney’s fees against Defendant. In support of the request, Plaintiff provides the declaration of its counsel, Edessa L. George.

Ms. George provides the breakdown of her billing in connection with the action. (George Decl., ¶9 at pp. 5-8.) She states that she has been an attorney since 1987 and provides her experience. (Id., ¶3.) Ms. George states that her billing rate for this case was $300/hour, which she believes is standard in the legal community and for the landlord-tenant practice in particular. (Id., ¶10.) She details the work that she performed in the 5-week duration of this case, including preparing the motion for summary judgment, filing a supplemental points and authorities per the Court’s order, preparing supplemental evidence, preparing Plaintiff’s settlement conference statement, filing an ex parte application for leave to use extracts of written discovery at trial, filing declarations, preparing a motion in limine, and preparing the exhibit and witness list, trial brief, proposed jury instructions, narrative statement to the jury, and jury verdict with special interrogatories. (Id., ¶6.) Total, she states that she spent 78.8 hours on this action at $300/hour, for a total of $23,640. (Id., ¶¶9-11.)

The Court has reviewed the billing records and finds that the tasks performed and the time spent by counsel on this action are reasonable. Further, the Court finds that Ms. George’s hourly rate of $300 is reasonable in light of her experience and the work performed in this action.

Accordingly, the motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount requested.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff CPC Six, LLC’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $23,640.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.