Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 19STLC01907 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 19STLC01907, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**

Case Number: 19STLC01907 Hearing Date: July 27, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff FML Management Corp.

RESP. PARTY: None.

[MOTION]

(CCP § 1021, 1032; Civ. Code § 1717)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff FML Management Corp.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $27,201.08.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 25, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: Filed on July 12, 2022. [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On February 22, 2019 Plaintiff FML Management Corp., (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for breach of lease agreement against Defendants Genaro J. Bautista (“Bautista”), Norma E. Funes (“Funes”), and Martha Rivera (“Rivera”).

On June 19, 2020, the Court’s clerk entered default as to Bautista, Funes, and Rivera.

On December 10, 2020, the Court set aside the default against Bautista.

At trial, on April 11, 2022, the Court was informed that Rivera was deceased and dismissed her. In addition, the Court found in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants in the amount of $8,768.05, plus pre-judgment interest, and costs of $360.00.

II. Legal Standard

With respect to attorney fees and costs, unless they are specifically provided for by statute (e.g., CCP §§ 1032, et seq.), the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.¿(CCP § 1021.) The prevailing party on a contract, which specifically provides for attorney fees and costs incurred to enforce the agreement, is entitled to reasonable attorney fees in addition to other costs.¿ (Civ. Code § 1717(a); CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5(a)(10)(A).)¿ The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine the prevailing party and shall fix, as an element of the costs of suit, the reasonable attorney fees.¿ (Civ. Code § 1717(a), (b).)¿ Any notice of motion to claim attorney fees as an element of costs under shall be served and filed before or at the same time the memorandum of costs is served and filed; if only attorney fees are claimed as costs, the notice of motion shall be served and filed within the time specified in CRC 3.1700 for filing a memorandum of costs.¿ (CRC 3.1702; Gunlock Corp. v. Walk on Water, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1303, fn. 1.)¿

“It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623 624.) The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily “begins with the ‘lodestar’ [method], i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) “[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.” (Margolin v. Reg’l Planning Comm’n (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.) 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. (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [discussing factors relevant to proper attorneys’ fees award].) 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. at 48, fn. 23.) The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include “(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.” (Mountjoy v. Bank of Am. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 271.)¿

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.¿ (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guaranty Assoc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)¿ General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice. (Ibid.)

III. Request for Judicial Notice

Bautista filed two separate Requests for Judicial Notice. The first one relates to corporate information for Plaintiff and some emails. (5/2/22 Request for Judicial Notice). Bautista’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED.

Bautista also filed a second Request for Judicial Notice on July 18, 2022. In addition to requesting judicial notice of certain pleadings in the case, but Bautista also offers arguments relating to the pleadings. To the extent that Bautista requests judicial notice of (1) the default entered as to Defendant Rivera and Funes (Exh. A), (2) Notice of Tentative Ruling Regarding Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint (Exh. B), (3) Rejection of Electronic Filing on July 18, 2019 (Exh. C), (4) Request for Judicial Notice filed September 6, 2020 (Exh. D), (5) Answer of Genaro Bautista filed February 7, 2022 (Exh. E), (6) 3/3/21 Minutes Order from Case No. 19STLC01893 (Exh. I), and (7) 4/9/21 Minute Order in Case No. 19STLC01856 (Exh. J), Bautista’s request is GRANTED. Bautista’s requests for Judicial Notice as to other Exhibits and to the arguments in both of the Requests for Judicial Notice are hereby DENIED.

IV. Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court to recover $27,201.08 in attorneys’ fees, representing $26,001.08 of fees actually incurred and $1,200 for the projected fees for the instant Motion. The hour rates sought are as follows:

· James Feffer $400/hour

· Contract Attorney $275/hour

· Paralegal $175

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the rates requested by Plaintiff¿are¿reasonable and¿commensurate with or lower than rates charged by attorneys with comparable skills and expertise. In addition, the Court’s review of the James Feffer Declaration (in support of the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees), its description of the attorneys’ years of experience, the accompanying exhibits, the elimination of duplicative and repetitive entries, and the arguments and evidence brought forth by Plaintiff leads to the conclusion that the attorneys’ fees as requested are reasonable because they are supported by substantial evidence under the present circumstances.

Here, there is no opposition to the Motion, and Bautista has failed to offer any argument that the requested rates and fees are unreasonable. The Court notes that Bautista filed two Requests for Judicial Notice, but failed to substantively oppose the Motion.

Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $27,201.08.

V. Conclusion & Order

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $27,201.08.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.