Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2019-00063469-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 16, 2023

11/17/2023  08:25:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00063469-CU-BC-CTL PIAZZA CARMEL LLC VS TENANCINGO LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorneys' fees is GRANTED IN PART. CC § 1717.

Following entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants KJ Consortium, LLC, Kirk W.

Forrest, Luis Daniel Correa and Brittney Alaine Correa [ROA 93], the court finds Plaintiff is the prevailing party under the Lease Agreement for purposes of the award of CC § 1717 attorneys' fees.

As to the amount of fees, PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084 sets forth the applicable analysis.

[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. 'California courts have consistently held that 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.' (Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004-1005 [185 Cal.Rptr. 145].) The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. (Id. at p. 1004; Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 1002 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 506].) The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.

(Serrano v. Priest, supra, 20 Cal.3d at p. 49.) PLCM Group, 22 Cal.4th at 1095. These factors include ' ' 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.' ' PLCM Group, 22 Cal.4th at 1096 citing Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.

Based on the factors set forth above, and the court's own experience, and absent any opposition from Defendants, the court finds the hours spent by Plaintiff's attorneys reasonable. The court also finds the hourly rates charged by Plaintiff's attorneys reasonable. Based on the evidence and authorities Plaintiff submits, and based on the court's own experience, the court finds the rates charged are commensurate with counsel's skill and experience and within the range of market rates charged by attorneys of equivalent experience, skill and expertise. PLCM Group, 22 Cal.4th at 1095 ['[t]he reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work']. However, the court finds rates over $200.00 for paralegals is excessive and unreasonable for cases venued in San Diego County. The court reduces the hourly rates charged for paralegals ($250.00, $275.00 and $300.00) to $200.00 per hour.

Plaintiff also seeks $7,553.29 in statutory costs. Court records show that Plaintiff filed its Memorandum Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982716  4 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PIAZZA CARMEL LLC VS TENANCINGO LLC [IMAGED]  37-2019-00063469-CU-BC-CTL of Costs on June 6, 2023 [ROA 102] and that Defendants did not file a motion to tax within the 15-day time period required under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700(b)(1). Absent a timely motion to tax, there is no basis for Defendants to challenge Plaintiff's claimed statutory costs. Accordingly, the court awards Plaintiff statutory costs of $7,553.29.

The court orders Plaintiff's counsel to, within 10 days of this ruling, submit a declaration setting forth the re-calculated amount of attorney's fees after the $250.00, $275.00 and $300.00 hourly rates for paralegals are adjusted to $200.00 per hour. The court will thereafter issue a final ruling.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2982716  4