Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 20NWCV00470 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20NWCV00470, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00470 Hearing Date: January 26, 2023 Dept: C

SUN WEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC. v. AMERICAN SELECT FUNDING, INC.

CASE NO.: 20NWCV00740

HEARING: 01/26/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant AMERICAN SELECT FUNDING, INC.’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $33,360.00.

Moving Party to give Notice.

Defendant moves for recovery of attorney’s fees in the amount of $54,360.00 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1717.

Cal. Civ. Code §1717(a)(1) provides attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in any action on a contract where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party.

Here, it is undisputed that Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant on March 9, 2022, and it is undisputed that there is an agreement between the parties establishing Defendant’s entitlement to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1717.

When assessing the amount of any attorney’s fee award, courts typically determine what is reasonable through the application of the “lodestar” method. Under the lodestar method, a base amount is calculated from a compilation of (1) time reasonably spent and (2) the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. (Serrano v. Priest (“Serrano III”) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48); (See also Meister v. Regents of University of California (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 holding that the lodestar method applies to statutory attorney fees award unless the underlying statute provides for another method of calculation). Normally, a “reasonable” hourly rate is the prevailing rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience in the relevant community. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) That amount may then be adjusted through the consideration of various factors, including “(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, and (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) The Court is vested with discretion to determine which claimed hours were reasonably spent, and what an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501); (See also Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1987) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 644.) [“We readily acknowledge the discretion of the trial judge to determine the value of professional services rendered in his or her court.”].

In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the amount of fees sought is excessive.

Defendant’s motion seeks fees based on the firm’s blended hourly rate of $600/hr. The Court may consider the prevailing rate for attorneys of similar skill and experience in providing comparable legal services in the community. (City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 78, 82-83.). The Court finds Counsel’s hourly rate reasonable.

Defendant has established an entitlement to reasonable fees in the amount of $33,360.00. The Court’s determination is undertaken in the exercise of its discretion to determine whether rates or hours are reasonable. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501.) The Court reduces Defendant’s claimed hours and costs as follows:

(1) a reduction of $300. —.3 hours on 03/01/22 as unreasonably duplicative and excessive.

(2) A reduction of $2,100.00 – 3.3 hours on 10/11/21 as unreasonably duplicative and excessive.

(3) A reduction of $18,600.00 for entries dated September 2021 that reference a motion for judgment on the pleadings and/or motion for summary judgment. No such motions were ever filed or argued before this Court.