Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV06116, Date: 2024-03-20 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.

On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff, Winstress Limited, filed a Complaint for breach of lease agreement against Defendants Yolanda E. Wilber (“Wilber”) and Alejandro Jose Guerrero (“Guerrero”). Plaintiff is the landlord and Defendants are the tenants of the certain real property located at 1186 S. Crocker Street, Los Angeles, California 90021

On May 25, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication on nine of twelve issues. The remaining three issues were: (1) the amount of rent that Defendants owed to Plaintiff pursuant to the Lease, (2) when Plaintiff took possession of the Premises, and (3) whether Plaintiff was required to and failed to mitigate its damages.

On November 1, 2023, the remaining issues were heard at trial. On December 8, 2023, the court issues a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. The court awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $193,163.00.

On February 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and concurrently filed a Memorandum of Costs.

With respect to attorney fees and costs, unless they are specifically provided for by statute (e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1032, et seq.), the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.)¿ The prevailing party on a contract, which specifically provides for attorney fees and costs incurred to enforce the agreement, is entitled to reasonable attorney fees in addition to other costs.¿ (Civ. Code § 1717, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A).)¿ The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine the prevailing party and shall fix, as an element of the costs of suit, the reasonable attorney fees.¿ (Civ. Code § 1717, subds. (a), (b).)¿ Any notice of motion to claim attorney fees as an element of costs under shall be served and filed before or at the same time the memorandum of costs is served and filed; if only attorney fees are claimed as costs, the notice of motion shall be served and filed within the time specified in CRC 3.1700 for filing a memorandum of costs.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702; Gunlock Corp. v. Walk on Water, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1303, fn. 1.)¿¿

“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. [Citation.]”¿ (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623 624.) The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily “begins with the ‘lodestar’ [method], i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”¿ (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)¿ “[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. Reg’l Planning Comm’n (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.)¿ 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.¿ (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [discussing factors relevant to proper attorneys’ fees award].)¿ 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.¿ (Id. at p. 48, fn. 23.)¿ The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include “(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.” (Mountjoy v. Bank of Am. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 271.)¿¿

In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence.¿ (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guaranty Assoc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)¿ General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.¿ (Ibid.)¿

Plaintiff moves the court to recover $54,942.50 in attorneys’ fees and $4,111.67 in costs pursuant to the Lease Agreement. Paragraph 31 of the Lease Agreement provides:

If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding to enforce the terms hereof or declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereafter defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. Such fees may be awarded in the same suit or recovered in a separate suit, whether or not such action or proceeding is pursued to decision or judgment. The term "Prevailing Party" shall include, without limitation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought, as the case may be, whether by compromise, settlement, Judgment, or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker of its claim or defense. The attorneys' fee award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be such as to fully reimburse all attorneys' fees reasonably incurred. Lessor shall be entitled to attorney’s fees, costs and expenses incurred in preparation and service of notices of Default and consultations in connection therewith, whether or not a legal action is subsequently commenced in connection with such Default or resulting Breach. Broker(s) shall he intended third party beneficiaries of this Paragraph 31.”

As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of fees and costs. Plaintiff seeks to recover for the following hourly rates:

The court finds that the rates requested by Plaintiff¿are¿reasonable and¿commensurate with or lower than rates charged by attorneys with comparable skills and expertise. In addition, the court’s review of the Declaration of Michael Shakhouri (in support of the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs), its description of the attorneys’ years of experience, the accompanying exhibits, the elimination of duplicative and repetitive entries, and the arguments and evidence brought forth by Plaintiff leads to the conclusion that the attorneys’ fees as requested are reasonable.

Defendants, having not filed an opposition to the Motion, do not offer any argument that the rates and fees are unreasonable, or that any of the claimed costs are objectionable.

The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded the total sum of $59,054.17, consisting of $54,942.50 in attorneys’ fees and $4,111.76 in costs.

¿¿¿

¿ Kerry Bensinger¿¿

¿ Judge of the Superior Court¿