Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: LAM17K04433, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM17K04433     Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP § 685.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED for attorney’s fees in the amount of $915.00 and costs in the amount of $371.74, for a total of $1,286.74.

SERVICE: 

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:                                                                                  [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                                                                                             [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On May 9, 2017, this Court entered as judgment a sister-state judgment from the County of Pinal, State of Arizona in favor of Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendants Deprece L. Reddick and Jane Doe Reddick (Defendants).

On August 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, requesting $2,572.50 in attorney’s fees and $738.80 in costs.  (8-27-18 Motion p. 10, Baillio Dec. ¶¶ 14-15.)  No opposition was filed.  On October 30, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs, awarding $1,500.00 in attorney’s fees and $738.80 in costs.  (10-30-18 Minute Order.)

On January 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs for “at least $1,271.50.”  (1-5-22 Motion, p. 11, Baillio Dec. ¶¶ 14-15, Ex. A.)  On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff refiled the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs incurred post-judgment, requesting $1,286.74 in post-judgment attorney’s fees and costs (“the Motion.”).  On June 22, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file a proper proof of service.  (6-22-22 Minute Order.)  On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service demonstrating that Defendants were served with the Motion and supporting documents via mail.

No opposition has been 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).)

“The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.  Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included in costs collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by law.  Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040.)

“The judgment creditor may claim costs authorized by Section 685.040 by noticed motion.  The motion shall be made before the judgment is satisfied in full, but not later than two years after the costs have been incurred.  The costs claimed under this section may include, but are not limited to, costs that may be claimed under Section 685.070 and costs incurred but not approved by the court or referee in a proceeding under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 708.010) of Division 2.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080(a).)

“The 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080(b).)

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.            Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Exhibits “1” to “3,” all of which are records from the State of Arizona and this Court.  (4-12-22 Request for Judicial Notice.)  The request is GRANTED.

IV.           Discussion

A.    Proof of Service

On June 22, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to allow Plaintiff additional time to file a proper proof of service showing that the moving papers were served on the Defendants.  Plaintiff complied with the Court’s order and filed a proper Proof of Service on June 24, 2022.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion contains the incorrect address for the Court, stating that the address is 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 instead of 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. However, the Notice of Continuance that Plaintiff served on Defendants has the proper court address so the Court will assume that Defendants understood where the hearing was to take place.  

B.    Attorney’s Fees

In this case, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 685.070(a)(6) because the sister-state judgment awarded attorney’s fees.  (4-12-22 Request for Judicial Notice, Ex. 2.)

Plaintiff supports its request for $1,286.73 in post-judgment attorney’s fees and costs by submitting a declaration of its counsel and a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment.  (See Baillio Decl.; 4-12-22 Memorandum of Costs.)  The Court finds that these documents satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 685.080(b).

In its previous ruling on a Motion for Attorney’s Fees on October 30, 2018, the Court found that the litigation history in the case was minimal and there was no discovery or opposition.  (10-30-18 Minute Order, p. 3.)  The Court noted that Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Baillio, frequently appeared in front of the Court and represented clients in similar actions so “he has developed a proficiency and efficiency in handling this type of action.”  (Ibid.)  The Court also analyzed the number of hours expended and determined that counsel’s invoice contained tasks which “‘were not reasonably expended in pursuit’ of enforcing the judgment.”  (Ibid. at 4, citing Harman v. City & County of San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 407, 417.)  Taking these factors into consideration, the Court found that the request for $2,572.50 in attorney’s fees was unreasonable and instead awarded $1,500 in attorney’s fees.  (Ibid.)

Here, the Court reviews counsel’s invoice for tasks billed between August 12, 2020, and July 22, 2022, in pursuit of enforcing the judgment, which has not yet been fulfilled.  (Mot. p. 13, Ex. A.)  In this Motion, Plaintiff requests $915.00 in attorney’s fees.  (Ibid.)  The Court considers the same factors as before, including counsel’s expertise, number of hours expended on each task, and whether each task was expended in pursuit of the judgment.  The Court finds the fees to be reasonable and awards $915.00.

C.    Costs

Code of Civil Procedure § 685.070(b) states: “Before the judgment is fully satisfied but not later than two years after the costs have been incurred, the judgment creditor claiming costs under this section shall file a memorandum of costs with the court clerk and serve a copy on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail. The memorandum of costs shall be executed under oath by a person who has knowledge of the facts and shall state that to the person's best knowledge and belief the costs are correct, are reasonable and necessary, and have not been satisfied.”

Code of Civil Procedure 685.080(b) requires that: “The 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.” Plaintiff requests costs in the amount of $371.74.  (Motion p. 11, Baillio Decl. ¶ 15; Ex. A.)

The Court finds the costs requested reasonable and necessary and awards costs in the amount of $371.74.

V.             Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED for attorney’s fees in the amount of $915.00 and costs in the amount of $371.74, for a total of $1,286.74.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.