Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV21404, Date: 2023-11-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21404    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Shakedra Bearden and Herman Gaither (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. Plaintiffs request $14,542 in attorney’s fees.

Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED.  Defendants Nashawn Durden and Valiant Group of California LLC (“Valiant”)(collectively, “Defendants”) shall pay $14,542 within 60 days directly to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Background

Plaintiffs were tenants at a building owned by Defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that during the tenancy, the property rented by Plaintiffs had a number of serious sanitation issues as a result of Defendants’ negligence. Additionally, Durden wrongfully evicted Plaintiffs by welding their door shut, boarding up the windows, and posting fake official notices indicating that the property had been closed by the sheriff’s order.

Plaintiffs filed this action on June 7, 2021, alleging a number of causes of action arising out of these events.

Defendants failed to answer the complaint. The Court entered a default judgment  for Plaintiffs in the amount of $350,000.

Defendants moved to set the judgment aside. The Court denied Defendants’ motion on March 10, 2022.

Defendants appealed the denial of the motion. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside default on August 29, 2023. The Court of Appeal determined that Plaintiffs are entitled to their costs on appeal.

The lease agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants provides that the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in any action to enforce any part of the lease.

Plaintiffs filed this motion on September 25, 2023. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

The lodestar method for calculating attorney fees applies to any statutory attorney fees award, unless the statute authorizing the award provides for another method of calculation. (Glaviano v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 744, 750-751.) “Under the lodestar method, the trial court must first determine the lodestar figure—the reasonable hours spent multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate—based on a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of the case.” (Id. at p. 751.) 

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 moving party bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(5).) The party seeking fees has the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784.) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) A plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.)

“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.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488, quoting Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) When items are properly objected to, the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)

“[C]ontractually authorized attorney fees … may either be requested of the appellate court while the appeal is pending, or of the trial court upon issuance of the remittitur. The trial court has jurisdiction to award them, regardless of the lack of specific instructions in the opinion or the remittitur.” (Harbour Landing-Dolfann, Ltd. v. Anderson (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 260, 264–265.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees on the contract because they are the sole prevailing party.

Hourly Rate

Plaintiffs request an hourly rate of $525.00 for attorney Matthew L. Brinton. (Brinton Decl. ¶ 3.) Brinton has over 10 years of experience in civil litigation and has practiced real estate litigation for roughly 7 years. (Brinton Decl. ¶ 2.) The Court finds Brinton’s hourly rate to be reasonable.

Billable Hours

Plaintiffs request a total of 27.70 hours. (Brinton Decl. ¶.) Plaintiffs provide a time sheet documenting the hours spent on the appeal. (Brinton Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. D.) The Court finds the time expended to be reasonable.

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion in full.