Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC06318 2022-09-22 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**

On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff Habashy Law Firm (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Seun Lee (“Lee”), El Taco of California, Inc. (“El Taco”) and El Taco 2010, Inc. (“El Taco 2010”), (collectively, “Defendants”) for breach of contract.

On April 18, 2022, pursuant to Plaintiff’s Requests, the Court entered default against Defendant El Taco and Defendant El Taco 2010. (4-18-22 Requests.)

On April 26, 2022, at the non-jury trial, no appearances were made by Defendant, so the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s evidence and entered judgment for Plaintiff for $20,733.45 and against Defendants, jointly and severally liable. (4-26-22 Minute Order.) The Judgment was signed by the Court on April 29, 2022. (4-29-22 Judgment.) Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on Defendants on May 5, 2022.

On July 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees (“Motion”) in the amount of $18,690.

A prevailing party in a lawsuit includes “the party with a net monetary recovery.” (Code of Civ. Proc. 1032(a)(4).)

A prevailing party in entitled to recover costs, including attorney’s fees, as a matter of right. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1032(a)(4), 1032(b), 1033.5.) Furthermore, attorney’s fees are allowable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(10).)

Civil Code § 1717 states in pertinent part: “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce¿that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the¿party¿prevailing¿on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to¿other¿costs.” (Civ. Code, § 1717(a)).

“A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)(1).) In a limited civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 30 days after service of a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.822(a)(1).)

The calculation of attorney’s fees in California begins with the “lodestar” method – multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate. 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. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) 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. (Ibid. at p. 48, fn. 23.) After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is a reasonable figure. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096.)

“[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (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. [Citation.] The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services. . . . This 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.” [Internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.]

((2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) “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. [Citations.] The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. . . . The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. [Citations.]” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)

No specific findings reflecting the court’s calculations are required. The record need only show that the attorney fees were awarded according to the “lodestar” or “touchstone” approach. The court’s focus in evaluating the facts should be to provide a fee award reasonably designed to completely compensate attorneys for the services provided. The starting point for this determination is the attorney’s time records. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395-397 [verified time records entitled to credence absent clear indication they are erroneous].) However, California case law permits fee awards in the absence of detailed time sheets. (Sommers v. Erb (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1651; Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1810; Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 103.) An experienced trial judge is in a position to assess the value of the professional services rendered in his or her court. (Ibid.; Serrano, 20 Cal.3d 25 at 49.)

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees of $18,690.00 from Defendants Lee, El Taco, and El Taco 2010, on that basis that “Plaintiff is the prevailing party in the action by any measure; the parties’ agreement contains a clear provision for the award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party; and Plaintiff can demonstrate that the requested fees are reasonable under the circumstances.” (Mot. p. 2.)

Before addressing the merits of the Motion, the Court discusses its timeliness. As stated above, “[a] notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)(1).) In a limited civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earlier of 30 days after service of a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.822(a)(1).)

Here, Plaintiff served Defendants with a Notice of Entry of Judgment on May 5, 2022, via regular mail. Considering the additional five (5) days for service by mail, as outlined in Code of Civil Procedure § 1005(b), the instant Motion should have been filed and served no later than June 9, 2022. Since it was not filed or served until July 5, 2022, it is untimely and is therefore DENIED.

[1] Defendants’ address is listed as 7870 Florence Avenue, Downey, 90240 in Court documents. The Motion was served to Defendants via mail at 1276 S. Citrus Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90019, which is purportedly Defendant Lee’s home address. It is not clear if this is the appropriate address for service.