Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STCP03152, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP03152     Hearing Date: August 4, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioners Michael Tamola and Anita Schillhorn

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(Civ. Code § 8488)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Michael Tamola and Anita Schillhorn’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $3,000.00.

SERVICE:

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

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

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

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of August 2, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 2, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On September 23, 2021, Petitioners Michael Tamola (“Tamola”) and Anita Schillhorn (“Schillhorn”) (“Petitioners”) filed the instant verified Petition for Decree to Release Property from Mechanic’s Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent Vu Pham aka Vu Hoang Pham (“Respondent”). The Petition seeks an order releasing property commonly known as 3676 Via Dolce, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, erroneously designated as 3676 S. Via Dolce, Marina Del Rey, California 90292 (the “Subject Property”) from a mechanic’s lien filed on December 28, 2020, by Respondent.  (Pet. ¶ 1.)

            On March 29, 2022, the Court granted the Petition and ruled that “[a]ttorney’s fees under Civil Code section 8488 may be sought pursuant to a noticed motion.”  (3-29-22 Minute Order.)

            On May 5, 2022, Petitioners filed the instant Motion for Determination of Prevailing Party Status and Attorney’s Fees in the sum of $3,000.

No opposition was filed.

II.              Legal Standard

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(a)(4).)  Attorney’s fees may be recovered as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(10).)

Civil Code section 8488(c) allows for the prevailing party in a petition to release property from a mechanic’s lien to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees.

“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 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.  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.  (Id., 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 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. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154:

“[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.]

(Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140.)  “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, 623624.)

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.  (Id.; Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 255.)

III.            Discussion

Petitioners’ Motion is timely as no “notice of entry of judgment” was served and the Motion was filed on May 5, 2022, within 90 days of the Court’s April 7, 2022, signed Order.  (4-7-22 Order.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 1032(a)(4) states that in situations where there was no net monetary recovery, “the ‘prevailing’ party shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion may allow costs or not…”  The Court determines that Petitioners are the prevailing party in the instant action because their Petition to Release Property from Mechanic’s Lien was granted.  (3-29-22 Minute Order.)  Thus, Petitioners are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.

Petitioners seek $3,000.00 in attorney’s fees.  (Mot. p. 1.)  Petitioner’s Counsel contends that his hourly rate is $500.00 per hour based on his extensive experience; however, he was hired to represent Petitioners in the instant case for a flat fee of $3,000.00.  (Lovett Decl. ¶ 4.)  As part of representation, Counsel lists the following tasks in his Declaration:

1.     Drafted letter to respondent prior to filing the Petition.

2.     Drafted original petition, filed on September 23, 2021.

3.     Arranged for service on respondent.

4.     Obtained copy of grant deed.

5.     Reviewed February 16, 2022, tentative ruling.

6.     Prepared first amended petition.

7.     Attended two hearings via L.A. Court Connect.

8.     Spoke with respondent’s attorney.

9.     Prepared April 7, 2022, Order to be signed by the Court.

10.  Ordered certified copy of Order.

11.   Prepared instant Motion.

Ibid. at ¶ 5.)  Counsel also anticipates “spending some additional time reading the Court’s tentative ruling on this motion and appearing at the hearing.”  (Ibid.)

The Court finds Counsel’s request for attorney’s fees to be reasonable. 

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Michael Tamola and Anita Schillhorn’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $3,000.00.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice.