Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 20NWCV00686, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20NWCV00686, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00686 Hearing Date: October 18, 2023 Dept: C

Sun West mortgage v. states mortgage

CASE NO.: 20NWCV00686

HEARING: 10/18/23 @ 9:30 AM

Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is awarded $161,452.17 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant States Mortgage Company, Inc. (Defendant) moves for an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to CCP §§ 1021 and 1032(b).

Background

Plaintiff Sun West Mortgage Company (Plaintiff) alleges that Defendant breached a series of agreements regarding selling and brokering of mortgage loans. Based thereon, the Plaintiff’s Complaint asserted causes of action for:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Open Book Account

3. Account Stated

4. Reasonable Value

5. Common Counts

6. Conversion

7. Unjust Enrichment

Legal Standard

“Except as attorney's fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; but parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to their costs, as hereinafter provided.” (CCP § 1021.)

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (CCP § 1032(b).)

Discussion

This Court previously ruled that Defendant was the prevailing party as to the Second through Seventh causes of action. However, Defendant was not the prevailing party as to the First cause of action because it is a contract claim and Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed it. Pursuant to Civil Code § 1717, there is no prevailing party when a party voluntarily dismisses as contract cause of action.

Defendant seeks $203,205.39 in attorney’s fees and costs consisting of $199,395.50 in fees and $3,809.89 in costs. “Where fees are authorized for some causes of action in a complaint but not for others, allocation is a matter within the trial court's discretion.” (Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 556.) The Court requested further briefing as to the issue of whether the attorney’s fees were attributable to defending only the First cause of action for Breach of Contract.

Defendant argues that all attorney’s fees should be awarded because they were all incurred on common liability issues. “Attorney’s fees need not be apportioned when incurred for representation on an issue common to both a cause of action in which fees are proper and one in which they are not allowed.” (Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 124, 129-130.)

First, Defendant argues that the Motion for Summary Judgment focused on the Second through Seventh causes of action and made reference to the First cause of action only when discussing the exclusion of evidence and statute of limitations applicable to all claims. Defendant argues that the amount incurred for the Motion was $16,385.33. Thus, the Motion for Summary Judgment fees are awarded because they were incurred for common liability issues.

Second, Defendant argues that the work related to the Bill of Particulars issues should be awarded because that work related to the Second and Third causes of action for common counts. Defendant argues that the amount incurred related to the Bill of Particulars was $10,935.86. Thus, the fees related to the Bill of Particulars are awarded because they were incurred for the Second and Third causes of action.

Third, Defendant argues that the discovery sets are all related to proving common theories of liability and cannot be particularized. Specifically, the Requests for Admission requested the same three admission as to each of the 25 disputed loans. Defendant argues that the discovery was necessary as to the Third cause of action for Account Stated. Additionally, the Requests for Production (sets one and two), Special Interrogatories (sets one and two), Form Interrogatories, and Request for Admission (set two) seek information on common issues of liability between the causes of action. Defendant argues that the amount incurred related to the discovery requests was $5,340.00. Thus, the fees related to the written discovery are awarded because they were incurred for common liability issues.

Fourth, Defendant’s discovery motions are awarded because they were incurred for common liability issues. Defendant argues that the amount incurred related to the discovery motions was $29,261.75.

Fifth, Defendant Motion for Terminating Sanction is awarded because it was incurred for common liability issues because it stems from Plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with this Court’s discovery orders relating to the above discovery and motions. Defendant argues that $9,701.56 was incurred related to the Terminating Sanctions Motion.

Sixth, Defendant argues that its settlement discussions and negotiation fees should not be apportioned, however, it does not provide a reason as to why these fees are attributable to all causes of action or to the Second through Seventh causes of action. Thus, these fees are not awarded.

Seventh, Defendant argues that the general work completed should not be apportioned because it was done without consideration as to specific causes of actions. Plaintiff argues that the block billing should not be awarded because it is not possible for the Court to determine what work was completed. However, the descriptions of each allow the Court to determine what work was completed. Defendant argues that the amount incurred related to general work was $43,466.12. Thus, the fees for Defendant’s counsel’s general case work are allowed because they were incurred for common liability issues.

Finally, Defendant argues that the its fees for its Motion for Sanctions should not be apportioned because the motion involved “deep analysis of all causes of action.” Defendant argues that the amount incurred related to the Motion for Sanctions was $46,361.55. Thus, the fees for Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions are awarded.

Plaintiff’s opposition provides no argument as to why the work on the above should be apportioned or what billings Plaintiff contends are related to the Breach of Contract cause of action only.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as to the fees for settlement discussions. Defendant is awarded $161,452.17 in attorney’s fees and costs.