Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC04140, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04140     Hearing Date: April 24, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Village Park Green Apartments

RESP. PARTY:          None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CPP §§ 1032, 1033.5, CCC § 1717)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Village Park Apartments’ Motion for Order Awarding Reasonable Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $4,775.00 and $1,000.66 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

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Village Park Green Apartments (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Gary Michael Green (“Defendant”), for breach of contract arising out of an alleged Rental Agreement and/or Lease of property located at 4460 Overland Avenue, Apartment No. 8, Culver City, CA 90230.  (Compl.)

On August 12, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”).  The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion on January 10, 2023.  (1-10-23 Minute Order.)

            On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs.  Plaintiff also filed a Proposed Judgment on January 19, 2023.

            On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Awarding Reasonable Attorney’s Fees (“Motion”).  No opposition has been filed.

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, 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.   (Ibid.; Serrano, 20 Cal.3d 25 at 49.)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motion was filed timely.

Plaintiff moves for a Court order granting it reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,775.00, as the prevailing party in the matter.  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)

Plaintiff argues that it is the prevailing party in this action because Plaintiff succeeded on its breach of contract claim against Defendant and its Motion for Summary Judgment was granted on January 10, 2023.  (Mot. p. 3; 1-10-23 Minute Order.)   Furthermore, the residential Rental Agreement and/or Lease provides for attorney’s fees.

"23. ATTORNEY'S FEES: If any legal action or proceeding be brought by either party to this agreement, the prevailing party shall be reimbursed for all reasonable attorney's fees and costs in addition to other damages awarded. Due to the ever increasing fees that can be charged by attorneys, it is agreed by the parties that both sides will waive their right to a jury trial."

(Mot. p. 3; Compl. – Ex. A.)

Plaintiff request $5,775.00 in attorney’s fees.  (Stern Decl. ¶ 3.)

Counsel has submitted a detailed billing statement reflecting the time spent and worked performed.  (Ibid.; Ex. A.)  Counsel Stern also states that he has been practicing for more than forty-nine (49) years and has specialized in business and business litigation.  (Ibid. at ¶ 2.)  The hourly rate he has charged is lower than his billing rate because Plaintiff’s principal is his friend.  (Ibid. at ¶ 3.)  Counsel spent “a substantial amount of time drafting the Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment and related papers, and conferring with [his] client to obtain the facts” which was more complicated due to the COVID Relief Program.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4.)

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

The Court deems Plaintiff the prevailing party given that on January 10, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  (1-10-23 Minute Order.)  Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs based on the Rental 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.  Having reviewed the billing statement submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds that the hours expended on certain tasks are excessive.  For example, between September 9 and 22, 2022, Counsel spent 5.25 hours preparing the documents for the Motion for Summary Judgment, at a billing rate of $350.00.  (Stern Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. A.)  Given Counsel’s extensive experience, the length of the papers filed, and the lack of opposition, the Court finds the amount of time expended on the MSJ unreasonable.  The Court finds a total of $4,775.00 in attorney’s fees to be reasonable.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $4,775.00.

The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs and finds costs in the amount of $1,000.66 to be reasonable.  (1-17-23 Memorandum of Costs.)  Plaintiff’s request for costs is GRANTED in the amount of $1,000.66.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Plaintiff Village Park Apartments’ Motion for Order Awarding Reasonable Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $4,775 and $1,000.66 in costs.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.