Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC700148, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC700148    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

The Daniels’ motion for a stay is DENIED. 

On 3/1/2017, American Technologies, Inc. (ATI) initiated this action against Carolyn Lowd Daniels and Bleaker Daniels. The complaint is for 1) breach of contract; 2) common count; 3) violation of civil code § 8800; and 4) foreclosure of mechanic lien. 

On 11/17/2017, Cross-Complainants the Daniels filed a Cross-Complaint. On January 26, 2018, Cross-Complainants filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against ATI, Clinton Monfort, Jehovany Berraza, TBG Construction Company (TBG), Tiara Imperial Homeowners Association, U.S.A.A. Insurance, and Mercury Insurance Group. 

            Now, the Daniels seek a stay pending appeal.

Discussion

            The Daniels seek a stay on enforcement of the money judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff on 8/29/2022.

            Generally, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from. (CCP § 916.) However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule, including money judgments which are not automatically stayed on appeal. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 917.1(a)(1).) Rather, in the case of a money judgment, the perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment unless an undertaking is given. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 917.1(a)). The policy behind requiring a bond or deposit on appeal is to assure collection of a money judgment and protect it against the "passage of time, delay or other reasons." (Grant v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 929, 935.)

            Here, the Daniels have not submitted any evidence that they have posted an undertaking, have not set forth any other basis of entitlement to an automatic stay, and have not shown that “exceptional circumstances” exist supporting a discretionary stay of the money judgment by writ of supersedeas pending appeal. (Quiles v. Parent (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 130, 136.)

            Based on the foregoing, the Daniels’ motion for a stay is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT
17

TENTATIVE RULING

ATI’s motion
for attorney fees is GRANTED.

On 3/1/2017, American Technologies,
Inc. (ATI) initiated this action against Carolyn Lowd Daniels and
Bleaker Daniels. The complaint is for 1) breach of contract; 2) common count;
3) violation of civil code § 8800; and 4) foreclosure of mechanic lien. 

On 11/17/2017, Cross-Complainants the
Daniels filed a Cross-Complaint. On January 26, 2018, Cross-Complainants
filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint against ATI,
Clinton Monfort, Jehovany Berraza, TBG Construction Company
(TBG), Tiara Imperial Homeowners Association, U.S.A.A. Insurance, and Mercury
Insurance Group. 

            Now,
ATI seeks to recover attorney fees.

Discussion

            As
noted in its 11/10/2022 ruling, the Court finds that ATI is entitled to recover
attorney fees as the prevailing party in an action to collect the wrongfully
withheld balance of $10,155.73 from the Daniels. (Civ. Code § 8800(c).)

            Accordingly,
the Court limits its analysis to whether or not hourly rates claimed and hours
billed for can reasonably establish an entitlement to $327,586.75.

ATI seeks $327,586.75
in reasonable attorney fees incurred while they were represented at GRSM and
Akerman respectively. 

The following
table summarizes the times, rates, and hours spent on ATI’s representation at
GRSM:

The following
table summarizes the times, rates, and hours spent on ATI’s representation at
Akerman:

Rates

            ATI
submitted declarations from each of the attorneys claiming hours in this
matter. After a consideration of the relevant factors, including the duration
of the litigation, the difficulty of the litigation, and the skill required,
the Court finds these are  reasonable
hourly rates for attorneys with similar skill and experience. (Stokus, supra,
217 Cal.App.3d at p. 657.)

Hours

            ATI
submitted billing records to establish the reasonableness of the services
performed.

In
opposition, the Daniels argue that $10,199.00 of ATI's time entries are
duplicative, involve block billing, and are unnecessary due to court closures
during the pandemic. In its supplemental motion, ATI clarified that “the
entries highlighted by the Daniels are not duplicative, but instead indicate
work that spanned over multiple days and/or involved continued review,
revision, and refinement of the work product related thereto.” (Motion,
10:4-7.) 

ATI then sent
forth extensive justification to each of the objected-to entries. (See Motion,
11:2- 14: 18.)

In light of
ATI’s billing records, and the comprehensive and extensive justification of the
objected-to entries, the Court concludes that the hours billed for are
reasonable. As such, the lodestar figure of $327,586.75—which includes fees
incurred as part of the motion—is reasonable. (Gonzalez v. City of Maywood (9th Cir. 2013) 729 F.3d 1196, 1203.)

            Based
on the foregoing, ATI’s motion for attorney fees is granted.

It is
so ordered.

Dated:  January   
, 2023

   Hon. Jon R.
Takasugi

   Judge of the
Superior Court

Parties who intend
to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org
by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party
submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must
identify the party submitting on the tentative. 
If all parties to a motion
submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email
indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no
appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to
Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present
are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied
entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to
argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. 
For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213)
633-0517.  Your understanding during
these difficult times is appreciated.