Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV14165, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

This action arises from the breach of a commercial lease agreement. On April 14, 2021, plaintiff Century City Mall, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against its former tenant, defendant Bailey 44, LLC (Defendant), for refusing to pay rent and unlawfully abandoning the leased premises with several years of term remaining.

On June 16, 2021, Defendant concurrently filed its Answer and Cross-Complaint, alleging two crossclaims for declaratory judgment and conversion. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Defendant’s crossclaims. On June 16, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the crossclaims.

The case proceeded to trial. On July 29, 2024, the first day of trial, Defendant represented to the court that it would not defend the case. The court granted defense counsel’s motion to be relieved and struck Defendant’s answer. Plaintiff presented evidence. The court found Defendant breached the lease and that Plaintiff was entitled to recover damages in the amount of $435,242.20. Judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor on August 6, 2024.

On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Plaintiff seeks an to recover attorneys’ fees in the sum of $999,476.90 as the prevailing party.

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys’ fees in the sum of $999,476.90 pursuant Civil Code section 1717.

Section 1717 provides, “[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. [¶] Where a contract provides for attorney’s fees, as set forth above, that provision shall be construed as applying to the entire contract, unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and the fact of that representation is specified in the contract. [¶] Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.” (Civ. Code, § 1717(a).)

“When a party obtains a simple, unqualified victory by completely prevailing on or defeating all contract claims in the action and the contract contains a provision for attorney fees, section 1717 entitles the successful party to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred in prosecution or defense of those claims.” (Scott Co. of California v. Blount, Inc. (1990) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1109; Civ. Code, § 1717(a)–(b).)

Here, Plaintiff has obtained an unqualified victory on its breach of contract claim. (Judgment, 8/6/24.) Second, Plaintiff obtained an unqualified victory on Defendant’s crossclaims. (See Minute Order, 6/16/23.) Further, the lease agreement contains a provision for attorney fees. (Maczek Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. 1, § 27.22.) Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. Given that this litigation spanned three years, including extensive discovery in prosecuting defending against the cross-claims, and indeed, proceeded to trial, (see Maczek Decl. ¶¶ 23, 35-46, 53, 57–62, 65–68, 72-75), the court finds the request for $999,476.90 in attorneys’ fees is reasonable.

The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Century City, Mall, LLC is awarded $999,476.90 in attorneys’ fees.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court