Judge: Lawrence Cho, Case: 23SMUD03156, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3501, or via e-mail at samdeptk@lasuperiorcourt.org advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing personally or by Court Call.

Case Number: 23SMUD03156    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: K

CASE NAME:           ZAPPIA v. SEARLE, et al

CASE NUMBER:                              23SMUD03156                                              

HEARING DATE:                                                    4/12/24   

TRIAL DATES:                    1/30/24 to 2/26/24 (BENCH)  

______________________________________________________________________________

                                                          TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION:  Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees                                                                                               GRANTED

I

INTRODUCTION

            This was an unlawful detainer brought by the owner of her property (Plaintiff or “P”) against her tenants (Defendants or collectively “D”).  The basis for the eviction was P’s desire to move her daughter into the residence.  After a hotly contested bench trial that spanned 5 days, this Court entered judgment for P.  P now brings this motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the lease agreement and CC §§ 1942.4(b)(2) and 1942.5(i).

            D’s opposition does not contest the grounds for the award of attorney’s fees nor that P was the prevailing party.  Instead, aside from a few arguments, D in essence challenges the amount of attorney’s fees requested.

II

ANALYSIS

            First, this Court rejects D’s argument that attorney’s fees cannot be awarded because they were not included in the Judgment.  As P points out in her Reply Brief, this argument is nonsensical because attorney’s fees are costs which cannot be sought until after judgment has been entered.

            Second, D’s argument that P’s counsel Edward Zappia was representing himself in pro per and therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees is also rejected out of hand.  Although counsel is married to the actual Plaintiff Anna Zappia, defense counsel was not the owner of the property at issue and was retained by his wife Anna to prosecute this unlawful detainer.  Moreover, defense counsel has also established that the residence at issue was Plaintiff’s sole property alone and not community property obtained during the course of the marriage.

            Third, this Court finds that this unlawful detainer action arose from the lease agreement which provided D’s with a 60 day notice of termination under Paragraph 40 of the Lease Agreement.  Obviously, D did not comply with the 60 day moveout notice per that paragraph, which has necessitated P bringing this action for eviction.  This case “arises from” D’s failure to abide by this term of the lease agreement, regardless of whether the basis upon which the UD was premised was an owner move-in.

            With respect to the attorney’s fees requested, this Court exercises its discretion in awarding 90 out of the 106 hours requested by P’s counsel, and reduces the hourly rate to $400/hr from the $450 requested.  The reductions are based on not awarding travel/commute time for the court appearances, and that $400 is a reasonable rate for an unlawful detainer attorney to have handled this matter.  This Court rejects D’s argument that further reductions should be given because defense counsel was relatively new to UD’s and had to spend considerable time learning this field.  There is no requirement that P hire a seasoned unlawful detainer attorney; so long as the hours spent were reasonable for any attorney to spend in order to prosecute this case, those hours will be awarded.  Furthermore, the issues in this case were not simple garden variety unlawful detainer issues; very experienced defense counsel in essence threw the proverbial “kitchen sink” at P’s, raising numerous complicated defenses including retaliation, habitability, and LA Rent Stabilization Ordinances.  In light of these issues raised by the defense, this Court easily finds that the 90 hours awarded are reasonable.  The $400 rate is a reasonable rate for an attorney to handle the unlawful detainer issues raised in this case and also given defense counsel’s inexperience with UD matters.

            IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that D pay P reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $36,000 and costs in the amount of $8,092.20.