Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC03925 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC03925, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03925 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO BE DEEMED PREVAILING PARTY AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Co.

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO BE DEEMED PREVAILING PARTY; FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(CPP §§ 1032, 1033.5, CCC § 1717)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Co.’s Motion to Be Deemed Prevailing Party and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED, in the amount of $4,259.00 in attorney’s fees and $844.62 in costs.

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 May 20, 2021, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff” or “ACIC”) filed an action against Defendant Timothy James Padden (“Defendant”) for breach of contract, arising out of an alleged Bond Application/Indemnity Agreement. (See Compl.) On July 7, 2021, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer.

On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Answer, or in the Alternative, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). On February 8, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Complaint, but granted the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with 30 days leave to amend. (2-8-22 Minute Order.)

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment against Defendant, given that Defendant had not filed any amended pleadings with 30 days of the Court order on February 8, 2022. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment on June 20, 2022, and on June 22, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the principal amount of $15,000, interest in the amount of $7,232.88, and attorney’s fees and costs to be determined. (6-20-22 Minute Order; 6-22-22 Judgment.) Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs on June 23, 2022, requesting costs in the amount of $844.62.

On June 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order to be Deemed Prevailing Party and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (“Motion”). No opposition was filed. On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of No Opposition to the Motion and requested that the Court preclude Defendant from offering oral argument at the hearing on the Motion.

II. Legal Standard

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.)

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

The Motion was filed timely.

Plaintiff moves to be deemed the prevailing party in this case and seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,259.00, and further seeks $1,375.00 in the event an opposition is filed and a reply is needed, plus an appearance at the hearing, and costs in the amount of $844.62, as reflected in the Memorandum of Costs. (Mot. pp. 1-2.)

Plaintiff argues that it is the prevailing party in this action because it “sought and recovered the full amount of the sum sought in the complaint of $15,000 plus interest” after the Court granted its motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (Mot. pp. 4-5; Kim Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Ex. 2.) As the prevailing party in the breach of contract action, it is entitled to the attorney’s fees and costs it incurred “in enforcing the terms of the subject indemnity agreement.” (Mot. p. 5.) Plaintiff also cites to the provision of the Indemnity Agreement that provides for an award of attorney’s fees:

1. To reimburse American Contractors Indemnity Company (‘Surety’) upon demand for all payments made for, and to indemnify Surety from, all loss, claim payments, costs and expenses, including attorneys and construction consultants’ fees, which the Surety may incur…

(Ibid. at p. 4; Kim Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff request $4,259.00 in attorney’s fees, plus an additional $1,375.00 for a reply and for an appearance at the hearing. (Mot. at pp. 7-8; Kim Decl. ¶¶ 13-14; Ex. 3.) It also requests $844.62 for costs, as outlined in the Memorandum of Costs filed on June 23, 2022. (Mot. p. 8.)

Plaintiff argues that the amount of attorney’s fees requested is reasonable and “every dollar requested in this Motion was absolutely necessary for ACIC to achieve the result obtained.” (Ibid. at pp. 5-8; Kim Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff contends that it “acted reasonably throughout this litigation and kept its fees and costs as low as possible” and included a billing statement detailing the work performed, hours expended, and respective billing rates for each person performing the tasks. (Mot. pp. 6-7; Kim Decl. ¶¶ 13, 16, Ex. 3.) The billing rates are as follows: $185.00 per hour for paralegals, $300.00 per hour for Counsel Murray, a partner with 12 years of experience, $260.00 per hour for Counsel Stevenson, a senior associate with 27 years of experience, $240.00-$275.00 per hour for Counsel Kim, an associate with 7 years of experience. (Mot. p. 7; Kim Decl. ¶¶ 12-13; Ex. 3.) Plaintiff argues that these rates are reasonable in the Los Angeles County for matters of comparable nature, performed by legal professionals in a comparable practice. (Mot. p. 7; Kim Decl. ¶ 17.)

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

The Court deems Plaintiff the prevailing party on the breach of contract action, given that on June 20, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and on June 22, 2022, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. (6-20-22 Minute Order; 6-22-22 Judgment.)

The Court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs based on the Indemnity Agreement at issue in this matter.

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. The billing statement submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel demonstrates that Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is reasonable. Given that no opposition was filed and thus, no reply was necessary, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $4,259.00. Since no opposition was filed, no reply was necessary. Moreover, the Court does not anticipate that oral argument will occur and, accordingly, declines to award any additional fees.

The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs and finds costs in the amount of $844.62 to be reasonable. Plaintiff’s Motion as to the costs is granted.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.