Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 20STLC08822, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC08822     Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Allen Steelgrave

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP § 685.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Allen Steelgrave’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $9,100.00.

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:                                                                                  [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                                                                                             [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On February 15, 2020, Defendant Joellen Chan and Plaintiff Allen Steelgrave entered into a lease agreement for a rental unit for approximately 6 weeks, with the lease term expiring on March 28, 2020.  Plaintiff paid a deposit of $1,000.00, which Defendant failed or refused to return after Plaintiff vacated the rental unit.

On October 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed a limited civil case against Defendant for wrongful retention of security deposit, alleging that Defendant has “failed and refused, and continue[s] to fail and refuse, to return to Plaintiff the sum deposited as security, to Plaintiff’s damage in the sum of $1,000.”

On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted on December 6, 2021.  A judgment was entered against Defendant, ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff $1,000.00 in actual damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(l), $2,000 in statutory damages pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1950.5(l), and Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the lease.  (1/12/22 Judgment.)

On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion for attorney’s fees and costs, seeking fees of $11,668.90.  No opposition was filed, but on May 9, 2022, Defendant filed a “Request for Extension of Time for Court Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees & Memorandum of Costs.”

On May 12, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for attorney’s fees and costs and again on July 14, 2022.

II.              Legal Standard

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorney’s fees, as a matter of right.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(a)(4).)  Civil Code section 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).)  The prevailing party on a contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.  (Id.)

“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).)

III.            Discussion

On May 12, 2022, the Court found the motion was timely, but that Plaintiff had failed to file a proof of service with respect to the motion.  The Court concluded that it could not determine whether Defendant had been properly served with the moving papers.  The Court further noted that the signed January 12, 2022 judgment may not have been served on Defendant.  The Court thus continued the hearing on this motion.

Plaintiff filed a proof of service on May 12, 2022, indicating the judgment was served on Defendant on January 18, 2022 and this motion was served on Defendant on February 22, 2022. On July 14, 2022, the Court found that it still could not ascertain whether Defendant was properly served with the January 12, 2022 judgment and this motion.  A review of the proof of service filed on May 12, 2022 shows that the judgment and this motion was served on Defendant by U.S. mail at 11650 W. Pico Blvd, PH9, Los Angeles, CA 90064.  A review of the Court’s records shows that Defendant was served with the summons and complaint by personal service at 2153 Glendon Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90025 and that each document filed by and associated with Defendant in this action uses the 2153 Glendon Avenue address as Defendant’s address, including the most recently filed “Request for Extension of Time for Court Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees & Memorandum of Costs” filed on May 9, 2022.  (12/17/20 Proof of Personal Service; 1/13/21 Motion to Set Aside Default; 3/16/21 Stipulation and Order to Set Aside Request for Entry of Default; 5/9/22 Request for Extension of Time for Court Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees & Memorandum of Costs.)  Plaintiff did not provide an explanation and proof that the 11650 W. Pico Blvd. address is Defendant’s current address.  Without proof of such, the Court continued the Motion to today and ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service demonstrating that the January 12, 2022 judgment and this Motion were properly served on Defendant at her Glendon Avenue address.  Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Proof of Service on July 14, 2022 demonstrating that he properly served the Judgment, the Motion for Attorneys Fees and the Memorandum of Costs on Plaintiff at her Glendon Avenue address. (7/14/22 Proof of Service Second).

Here, the Plaintiff’s Motion is timely, and it is undisputed that the Plaintiff is the prevailing party as a judgment was entered in his favor on January 12, 2022. This action is based on contractual agreement, a lease agreement, and the prevailing party of the contract was the Plaintiff. What remains is determining whether the fees requested are reasonable.

The Plaintiff is requesting a sum of $11,668.90 in attorney’s fees for the approximate 29 hours that Plaintiff alleges was spend litigating this matter, including 3.5 hours preparing this instant motion. (Decl. of Thompson, ¶19). The Plaintiff’s attorney provides an itemized list of how the hours expended on this case are divided amongst four different employees of the Thompson Consumer Law Group (“TCLG”) (Id. at p. 1). Janelle Cristales, Ceny Fisher, and Joel Wresh are either current or former paralegals with an hourly rate of $135 per hour. (Id. at p.5). Amongst them, Cristales worked for 3.2 hours on this case, Ceny Fisher worked for 0.1 hours on this case, and Joel Wresh worked for 4.8 hours on this case. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, p. 7). Attorney Russell S. Thompson IV worked for 17.40 hours on this case at an hourly rate of $506 per hour. (Id.).

The Court finds Plaintiff’s request to be excessive.  Specifically, the hours relating to preparing and drafting the complaint, preparing the summary judgment motion, and preparing the fee motion are higher than one would expect given Plaintiff’s counsel’s experience and billing rate.  The Court finds $9,100.00 to be reasonable.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $9,100.00. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.