Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STCP00844, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP00844     Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Pomona Islander, L.P.

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(CCC § 798.85)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Pomona Islander, L.P.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED for attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,800.00 and costs in the amount of $444.93, for a total of $6,244.93.

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 August 5, 2022                                    [X] Late                       [   ] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of August 9, 2022                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On March 9, 2022, Petitioner Pomona Islander, L.P. dba Pomona Islander Mobile Park Home (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Permanent Injunction Pursuant to Civil Code § 798.88 against Respondent Eudolia O. Casias (“Respondent”).  On April 5, 2022, Respondent filed an Answer.

            On April 11, 2022, the Court granted the Petition for Permanent Injunction for a period of three years.  (4-11-22 Minute Order.)

On April 26, 2022, Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Costs and subsequently, on May 11, 2022, the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) was filed, requesting $8,492.00 in attorney’s fees and $444.93 in costs, for a total of $8,936.93 (Beam Dec. ¶¶ 6-7.)  On August 5, 2022, Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion.  No reply was filed.

II.              Legal Standard

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.)  Attorney’s fees are allowable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(10).)

Civil Code § 798.85 provides:

“In any action arising out of the provisions of this chapter the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.  A party shall be deemed a prevailing party for the purposes of this section if the judgment is rendered in his or her favor or where the litigation is dismissed in his or her favor prior to or during the trial, unless the parties otherwise agree in the settlement or compromise.”

“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.

On April 11, 2022, the Court granted Petitioner Pomona Islander’s Petition for Permanent Injunction, thus, Petitioner is the prevailing party in this case and is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

Counsel for Petitioner lists some of the work provided by its law firm as “issuing one (1) of the Seven Day Notices, preparing and filing the Petition, communicating with witnesses, preparing and filing the declarations in support of the Petition, and attending the hearing and obtaining the issuance of the Injunction Order,” among others listed in its invoices (Beam Decl. ¶ 5.)  The hourly billing rates for the attorneys in the case are $350.00 (Attorney Beam) and $300.00 (contract attorney), and $140.00 (paralegals).  (Ibid.)  Moreover, the contract attorney spent one and a half (1.5) hours preparing the instant Motion and Attorney Beam spent an hour reviewing and revising the Motion, each at their respective hourly rates, for an additional sum of $800.00.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)  Attorney Beam further anticipates spending two (2) hours reviewing and preparing a reply if an opposition is filed, and at least two (2) hours preparing for and appearing at the hearing, for a total of $1,400 in attorney’s fees.  (Ibid.)  Petitioner requests $8,492 total in attorney’s fees.  (Ibid.)  Attorney Beam states that he has been practicing in this specialized area of law since 1982.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)

Petitioner also seeks $444.93 in costs – $225 for filing and motion fees, $95 for service of process, $67.23 for models, enlargements, and photocopies of exhibits, $57.70 in fees for electronic filing or service.  (Ibid. at ¶ 9; 4-26-22 Memorandum of Costs.)

On August 5, 2022, Respondent filed an untimely Answer to Petitioner’s Motion (“Opposition”).  Respondent states that she is “on a Fixed income monthly of $957.60 through Social Security…[and] cannot afford to pay an Attorney this is why [she is] Pro/Per.”  (Oppos. p. 2.)  She states that she has “completed everything that was asked,” which “has already drained out any money that [she] had saved.”  (Ibid.)  First, Respondent’s Opposition is untimely and was not filed nine (9) court days before the hearing.  Second, the Court is unable to consider Respondent’s inability to pay given that it is not a factor in the lodestar calculation.  The Court encourages the parties to negotiate a reasonable payment plan.

The Court considers counsels’ expertise, number of hours expended on each task, and other necessary factors, and finds Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees to be unreasonable.  Given Counsel’s extensive experience in the specific area of law, the number of hours spent on certain tasks appear to be excessive.  For example, the Court finds Petitioner’s counsel’s entry on February 16, 2022, regarding 2.70 hours spent on a phone conference with Cindy Churchill and drafting her declaration is excessive.  (Beam Decl. p. 14 – Ex. 2.)  Similarly, charging 2.70 hours to prepare five (5) exhibits, the Civil Case Cover Sheet, and e-filing the documents, an entry on March 3, 2022, is excessive.  (Ibid. at p. 15.)  Additionally, the instant Motion does not warrant two and a half (2.5) hours of time for drafting, two (2) hours of time for drafting a reply (Petitioner has not filed a reply), and two (2) hours to prepare for and appear at the hearing.  The Court finds $5,800.00 in attorney’s fees to be reasonable.

The Court finds requested costs reasonable and necessary and awards costs in the amount of $444.93.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Pomona Islander, L.P.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED for attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,800.00 and costs in the amount of $444.93, for a total of $6,244.93.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.