Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC01499, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01499     Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Calitex LLC

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiffs David Prince, et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(CPP §§ 1032, 1033.5, CCC § 1717)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Calitex LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $500.00.

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:          Filed on November 1, 2022.                           [X] Late                       [   ] None

REPLY:                     Filed on November 2, 2022.                           [X] Late                       [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On February 22, 2021, Plaintiffs David Prince and Ashley Prince (“Plaintiffs”), in propria persona, filed an action against Defendant Calitex, LLC (“Defendant”) for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the property management company from entering their apartment to make repairs.

On May 10, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On June 8, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On June 14, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Related Case, regarding case #22STLC02157 – Ashley Prince, et al. v. Calitex, LLC, pending in front of Department 26.  On September 22, 2022, the Court found that the cases, 21STLC01499 and 22STLC02157, are not related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).  (9-22-22 Minute Order.)

On June 15, 2022, Defendant filed an Ex Parte Application to Specially Set the Hearing Date of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative to Continue Trial.  The Court granted Defendant’s Application and advanced the hearing on the Motion to August 3, 2022, at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.  (6-20-22 Minute Order.)

On August 3, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, without leave to amend.  (8-3-22 Minute Order.)

On September 19, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $500.00 (“Motion”).  On November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a late Opposition to the Motion (“Opposition”).  On November 2, 2022, Defendant filed a Reply and Notice of Non-Opposition.

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

On November 3, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Defendant an opportunity to file and serve a corrected Notice of Motion.  (11-3-22 Minute Order.)

On November 3, 2022, Defendant filed an Amended Notice of Motion and Notice of Continuance, along with proof of serving Plaintiffs with these documents.  (11-3-22 Motion.)

On November 29, 2022, Defendant filed and served another Reply.

II.              Legal Standard

A prevailing party in a lawsuit includes “the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.”  (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.)

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.)

III.            Discussion

On November 3, 2022, the Court noted that the Motion was filed timely.  (11-3-22 Minute Order.)  The Court continued the hearing on the Motion because it found that the Notice of Motion was defective and did not contain the name or address of the courthouse where the hearing was to take place.  (Ibid.)

On the same day, Defendant filed an Amended Notice and Notice of Continuance, as well as proof of serving these documents on Plaintiffs.  (11-3-22 Motion.)

Defendant seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $500.00 as the prevailing party in the case.  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)  Counsel Lewis states that the hourly rates for attorneys at the firm representing Defendant are as follows: $295.00 per hour for partners, $240.00 per hour for associates, and $140.00 per hour for paralegals.  (Lewis Decl. ¶ 4.)  The attorney’s fees in this matter are “well in excess of $500.00” and Counsel Lewis has reviewed the billing statements since the inception of the case and has found that the ”work performed was reasonable and necessary.”  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a late Opposition to the Motion.  Although the Court is inclined to consider the Opposition, it is unable to discern any intelligible arguments against the Motion.

On November 2, 2022, Defendant filed a Reply and Notice of Non-Opposition.  On November 29, 2022, Defendant filed another Reply stating that it had not previously received Plaintiff’s Opposition.  (See 11-29-22 Lewis Decl.)  In this Reply, Defendant argues that the “Opposition is largely incomprehensible and does not set forth any evidence, argument or legal authority disputing the fact that” Defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees.  (11-29-22 Reply p. 3.)

            The Court finds that as the prevailing party on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Defendant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.  Furthermore, Defendant’s request for $500.00 is reasonable.

            For these reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $500.00.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Defendant Calitex LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $500.00.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.