Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC06910, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC06910     Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(CPP § 473(b))

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED, in the amount of $1,575.00 in attorney’s fees and $112.48 in costs, to be paid by defense counsel.

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 September 19, 2022                      [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of September 19, 2022                      [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On August 14, 2020, Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Robert Hughes (“Robert”) and Erin Hughes (“Erin”), (collectively “Defendants”) for (1) violations of Labor Code §204 for failure to pay wages, (2) violations of Labor Code for failure to pay overtime compensation, (3) violations of Labor Code § 226.7 (meal periods), (4) violations of Labor Code § 226.7 (rest periods), and (5) unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code §17200.

On March 1 and 3, 2022, pursuant to Plaintiff’s Request for Default, default was entered as to Defendant Erin and Defendant Robert, respectively.  (3-1-22 Request; 3-3-22 Request.)

On May 24, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default.  On June 22, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion and ordered them to file responsive pleadings within ten (10) days of notice of the Court order.  (6-22-22 Minute Order.)  On June 29, 2022, Defendants filed a joint Answer to the Complaint.

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees (“Motion”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) against defense counsel for $6,794.98 in attorney’s fees and costs.  On September 6, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion from September 14 to September 20, 2022.

No opposition was filed.  On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of No Opposition to the Motion and requested that the Court does not consider defense counsel’s oral arguments at the hearing due to his failure to respond to the Motion.

II.              Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following document: LASC Case No. MC025723, 10/28/2021 Minute Order, attached as “Exhibit 1” to Counsel Leonardo’s Declaration.

According to Evidence Code § 452, the Court may take judicial notice of matters that include records or rules of another court and facts or propositions of common knowledge, among other matters.  Although it is not necessary to take judicial notice of the Order from this Court, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice.

III.            Legal Standard

According to Code of Civil Procedure 473(b), “[t]he court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”

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.)

As explained in Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.:

“[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.)

IV.           Discussion

Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $6,794.98 against defense counsel, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b).  (Mot. pp. 2-3.)

Plaintiff states that on June 22, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default and indicated that Plaintiff was entitled to bring a motion for attorney’s fees as defense counsel had submitted an affidavit of fault for failure to submit responsive pleadings, resulting in the default.  (Mot. p. 3; Leonardo Decl. ¶ 3.)  Plaintiff argues that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b), the Court is obligated to grant a reasonable request for attorney’s fees and costs.  (Mot. p. 3.)

Plaintiff’s counsel requests $6,682.50 in attorney’s fees for 11.45 hours of work on opposing Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default, 1.90 hours of work on the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees, an additional 1.5 hours for reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply for the instant Motion, and $112.48 in costs.  (Mot. p. 3; Leonardo Decl. ¶ 7, 10.)  Counsel has attached a description of the tasks completed related to opposing the Motion and the time spent on each task, as well as tasks related to the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees.  (Leonardo Decl. ¶ 4.)  Counsel has been practicing law for 36 years handling similar matters and bills at a rate of $450.00 per hour.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)  The costs are calculated based on an e-filing fee of $52.48 plus the $60 fee for the instant Motion, totaling $112.48.  (Leonardo Decl. ¶ 5.) 

            No opposition has been filed by defense counsel to contest Plaintiff’s arguments.

            The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 473(b), given that the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default based on an attorney affidavit of fault.        (6-22-22 Minute Order.)

In determining the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees, the Court considers the complexity of the tasks, number of hours expended on each task, and other necessary factors.  Given Plaintiff’s counsel extensive experience in the field and the simplicity of the Opposition and the instant Motion, the Court finds the number of hours spent on each task excessive and unnecessary.  Furthermore, no opposition has been filed to the instant Motion, thus, counsel is not entitled to an additional 1.5 hours for reviewing an opposition and preparing a reply.

The Court grants attorney’s fees as follows: two (2) hours for opposing Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Default and one and a half (1.5) hours for preparing the instant Motion, at a rate of $450.00, for a total of $1,575.00.  The Court finds $112.48 in costs to be reasonable and grants Plaintiff’s request.

V.             Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff Maria De La Cruz’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED, in the amount of $1,575.00 in attorney’s fees and of $112.48 in costs, to be paid by defense counsel.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.