Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: LAM17K04418, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: LAM17K04418 Hearing Date: September 29, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
MOVING PARTY: Judgment
Creditor Tres Pueblos Homeowners Association
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
(CCP § 685.040, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Judgment Creditor Tres Pueblos
Homeowners Association’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is
GRANTED in the amount of $2,145.00 in attorney’s fees and $444.26 in costs, for
a total of $2,589.26.
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
27, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of September 27, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On April 24, 2017, Judgment
Creditor Tres Pueblos Homeowners Association (“Judgment Creditor”) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment
against Judgment Debtors Claudia
Quihuis and Aurelio Vecchiola
(collectively, “Judgment Debtors”). A judgment
of $6,585.23 was entered in favor of Judgment Creditor on April 24, 2017. Following a motion for attorney’s fees and
costs, the Court amended the judgment to $11,566.23 on October 3, 2018. (10-3-18
Minute Order.)
On August 17, 2020, Judgment
Creditor filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs to recover costs to
enforce judgment incurred between June 8, 2018, and April 22, 2020. On March 25, 2021, the Court granted Judgment
Creditor’s Motion for $2,698.00.
(3-25-21 Minute Order.)
On June 30, 2022, Judgment Creditor
filed the instant (second) Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (the “Motion”)
to recover costs to enforce judgment incurred between July 1, 2020, and June
29, 2022, in the amount of $2,589.26.
(Mot. p. 3.)
No opposition has been filed.
II.
Request for Judicial Notice
Judgment Creditor requests that the
Court take judicial notice of (1) the relevant portions of the Declarations of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Tres Pueblos recorded in Pinal
County, Arizona on July 8, 2005, Instrument No. 20051310872; (2) the judgment
entered in the Pima Consolidated Justice Court, County of Pima, State of
Arizona, entitled Tres Pueblos Homeowners Association v. Claudia Quihuis and
Aurelio Vecchiola entered on September 9, 2016; and (3) Notice of Entry of
Judgment on Sister-State Judgment entered in the instant action. (Mot., RJN Exs. 1-3.)
Judgment Creditor’s request is
GRANTED. (Evid. Code., § 452(c), (d).)
III.
Legal
Standard
The Court’s objective is to award attorney’s fees at the
fair market value based on the particular action. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th
1122, 1132.) “The reasonable hourly rate
is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler
(2000) 22 Cal.4th
1084,
1095.) “‘[T]he fee setting inquiry in
California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the
number
of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . .’”
(Ketchum
v.
Moses
(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134.) The
lodestar method is based on several factors, as relevant
to
each particular case: “(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.” (Id. at 1132.) “The
‘‘experienced
trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in
his
court,
and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed
unless the
appellate
court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’’”
(Id.) A negative modifier
is appropriate
when
duplicative work is performed. (Thayer
v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)
Code of Civil Procedure, § 685.070(a) states in pertinent
part: “The judgment creditor may claim under this section the following costs
of enforcing a judgment: . . . (6) Attorney's fees, if allowed by Section
685.040.” Code of Civil Procedure § 685.040 provides that a
“judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of
enforcing a judgment.” Attorney’s fees
incurred in enforcing a judgment are expressly excluded unless otherwise
provided by law. (Id.) Attorney’s fees that
are incurred in enforcing a judgment are collectible as costs “if the
underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment
creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of
section 1033.5” which allows for attorney’s fees when authorized by contract. (Id;
Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(10)(A).)
Code of Civil Procedure § 685.080(a) allows a Judgment
Creditor to claim costs by noticed motion “before the judgment is satisfied in
full, but not later than two years after the costs have been incurred.” In addition, § 685.080(b) requires that:
“[t]he notice of motion shall describe the costs claimed,
shall state their amount, and shall be supported by an affidavit of a person
who has knowledge of the facts stating that to the person's best knowledge and
belief the costs are correct, are reasonable and necessary, and have not been
satisfied. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment debtor. Service
shall be made personally or by mail.”
IV.
Discussion
Here, because the Judgment from the
underlying case awarded attorney’s fees and provided for “all costs and
attorney fees incurred by [Judgment Creditor] after submission of this judgment
for entry by the Court
in collecting the amounts in this Judgment,” Judgment Creditor is entitled
to attorney’s fees and costs in enforcing the Judgment pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 685.040. (RJN, Ex. 2.)
Judgment Creditor seeks to recover fees expended between
July 1, 2020, and June 29, 2022, in
the amount of $2,589.26 and submits the declaration of Counsel Baillio,
in support of its request. Baillio
states that as of the date of the instant Motion, “Judgment has not been
satisfied” and Creditor seeks to recover fees and costs within the two-year
limit as permitted by statute. (Baillio
Decl. ¶ 4.)
Creditor seeks $2,145.00 in
attorney’s fees for having had to “search assets owned by Debtors to use to
satisfy judgment” and to “draft this Motion.”
(Mot. p. 7; Baillio Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. A.) During the period between July 1, 2020, and
June 29, 2022, Baillio spent a total of four (4) hours in collection efforts
billed at a rate of $300.00 per hour before January 1, 2022, and $325.00 per
hour thereafter. (Mot., Baillio Decl.,
¶¶ 6, 8.) Attorney Cooper spent .3 hours on this matter billed at $300.00
per hour. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 6-7.) An additional 2.5 hours of attorney time,
billed at $300 per hour, was spent drafting the instant Motion, declaration,
request for judicial notice, and other pertinent documents. (Mot. p. 7; Baillio Decl. ¶ 14.) Counsel anticipates spending 0.4 hours,
billed at $325 per hour, to attend the hearing on the Motion. (Ibid.) Fees also include 2.2 hours of paralegal time
billed at $125.00 per hour. (Baillio Decl. ¶¶ 11-13.)
Creditor
also seeks $444.26 in costs, including “electronic monitoring fees, filing
fees, reservation fees, and background research fees.” (Mot. p. 7; Baillio Decl. ¶ 18.)
In reviewing the
billing record, the Court finds the rates charged, hours expended, and costs
sought were reasonably expended in collection efforts in Judgment Creditor’s
interest.
Accordingly, Judgment Creditor’s request
for attorney’s fees and costs
is GRANTED in the amount of $2,145.00 in attorney’s
fees and $444.26 in costs, for a total of $2,589.26.
V.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons,
Judgment Creditor Tres Pueblos Homeowners Association’s Motion
for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $2,145.00 in
attorney’s fees and $444.26 in costs, for a total of $2,589.26.
Moving party
is ordered to give notice.