Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC02200, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC02200 Hearing Date: February 1, 2024 Dept: 25
Hearing Date: Thursday, February 01, 2024
Case Name: AMERICAN
CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, a California corporation v. AURELIO VALLEJO
NIEVES, an individual; and DOES 1 through 75, inclusive
Case No.: 22STLC02200
Motion: Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party for and
Award for Attorney’s Fees
Moving Party: Plaintiff
American Contractors Indemnity Company
Responding Party: None
Notice: OK
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff American
Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party for and Award for Attorney’s
Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $10,792.28.
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 January 19, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as of January 25, 2024 [ ] Late [X] None
BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company
(“Plaintiff” or “ACIC”) filed a complaint against Defendant Aurelio Vallejo
Nieves (“Defendant” or “Nieves”) for breach of contract, arising out of an
alleged Bond Application/Indemnity Agreement (“Agreement”).
On May 17, 2023, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer to
the Complaint.
On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Motion”).
On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of No Opposition to
Motion. On August 10, 2023, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion to
September 12, 2023. On September 8, Defendant filed a late Opposition to the
Motion, and on September 12, 2023, Defendant filed a supplement to his late
filed Opposition. On September 12, 2023, the Court, continued the hearing on
the Motion once more to permit Plaintiff to file supplemental papers because
the declaration on which Plaintiff relied had not been signed under penalty of
perjury. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed its reply to the opposition,
along with the requested supplemental papers. On October 13, 2023, Defendant
filed an improper supplemental response to Plaintiff’s reply.
On October 18, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment. The Court entered summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on October
27, 2023, in the amount of $16,300.00 plus accrued interest at the statutory
rate of 10% per annum in the amount of $8,459.75, plus costs of suit and
attorneys’ fees to be determined by memorandum of costs and motion, as provided
by law.
On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs requesting
$ 1,149.78 in total costs.
On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to be Deemed
Prevailing Party for and Award for Attorney’s Fees.
No opposition was filed.
MOVING PARTY
POSITION
Plaintiff
prays for the Court for an order under CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5, and Civil Code § 1717,
deeming Plaintiff as the prevailing party against Defendant, and awarding
attorney’s fees and cost, pursuant to the contractual provisions of the
parties’ indemnity agreement, totaling $11,279.78 for the following: $9,642.50
in attorney’s fees, plus $487.50 if a reply to any opposition and an appearance
is needed, plus costs in the sum of $1,149.78 pursuant to the memorandum of
cost previously filed with the Court.
OPPOSITION
No
opposition has been filed.
REPLY
No reply
has been filed.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal
Standard
A prevailing party in a lawsuit includes “the party with a
net monetary recovery…If any party recovers other than monetary relief and
in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as
determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its
discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed,
may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant
to rules adopted under Section 1034.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 1032(a)(4).)
Civil Code §
1717 states in pertinent part: “[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.” (Civ. Code, § 1717(a)).
“A notice of
motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition
of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time
for filing a notice of appeal under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited
civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1702(b)(1).) In a limited civil case,
a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 30 days after
service of a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after
the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.822(a)(1).)
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, 623624.)
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.)
II. Discussion
The Court notes that the instant motion is
timely as a preliminary matter. Here, the Court entered summary judgment on
October 27, 2023. Plaintiff served a “Notice of Entry of Judgement” on
Defendant on November 09, 2023. The instant motion was filed on November 21,
2023, within thirty (30) days of the Notice of Entry of Judgement. Therefore,
the Court finds the motion timely filed under CRC rule 3.1702(b)(1).
Plaintiff moves for a Court order
granting it reasonable attorney’s fees of $9,642.50, plus $487.50 if a reply to
opposition and an appearance is needed, plus court costs of $1,149.78 pursuant
to the memorandum of cost previously filed with the Court. (Mot. pp. 1-2.)
Plaintiff argues that it is the
prevailing party in this action because Plaintiff succeeded in its breach of
contract claim against Defendant, and its Motion for Summary Judgment was
granted on October 18, 2023. (Mot. p. 3; Exh. 2; 10-18-23 Minute Order.)
Furthermore, the Indemnity Agreement provides for attorney’s fees, stating,
7. In the event of any litigation
arising out of or relating to this agreement, Surety shall be entitled to
recover its attorney’s fees incurred therein.
(Mot.,
Amber N. Kim Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Exh. 1.) Here, the Court finds Plaintiff the
prevailing party in this action as summary judgment was entered in its favor.
Plaintiff requests
$9,642.50 in attorney’s fees. (Id. ¶
13.) Plaintiff’s Counsel submits a detailed billing statement to the Court
reflecting the time spent and work performed. (Id.)
Counselor Kim states she bills between $275.00-$325.00 per hour as an associate
with seven years of experience. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Michael K. Murray, a partner at Plaintiff’s Counsel’s firm, charges
$300.00-$375.00 per hour based on his thirteen (13) years of experience. (Id.) Lanak & Hanna, P.C.’s paralegals,
billed between $185.00 and $205.00 per hour.
No opposition has been filed by Defendant to contest Plaintiff’s
arguments.
In determining the reasonable amount of
attorney’s fees, the Court considers the complexity of the tasks, the number of
hours expended on each task, and other necessary factors. Having reviewed the
billing statement submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds that the
hours expended are not excessive considering the circumstances in this case.
Given that no opposition or reply papers have been filed, the Court need not
grant an additional $487.50 in fees requested by Plaintiff’s counsel.
The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for
Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $9,642.50.
Additionally, the Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Costs
and finds that $1,149.78 in costs is reasonable (11-20-23 Memorandum of Costs).
Thus, Plaintiff’s request for costs is GRANTED for $1,149.78.
Accordingly,
the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the amount
of $10,792.28
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff American
Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party for and Award for Attorney’s
Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $10,792.28.