Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00681, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00681    Hearing Date: November 14, 2023    Dept: C

Pedro Garcia vs Elodia Garcia-Lopez, et al.

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00681

HEARING:  11/14/23 @ 9:30 a.m.

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER 

Plaintiff Pedro Garcia’s Motion to Determine Prevailing Party and to Fix Amount of Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff is deemed to be the prevailing party and is awarded attorney’s fees of $68,804.75.

Moving party to give notice.

Background

This cause came on regularly for trial on June 5, 2023, in Norwalk Department L, the Honorable Judge John A. Torribio, sitting without a jury, the right to a jury having been waived, and was tried on June 5, 6, and 12 of 2023.

At the trial date of June 12, 2023, after considering all arguments and exhibits, the Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Pedro against Defendants Elodia and Hector. The court also awarded Plaintiff damages in the amount of $555,993.00.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on August 24, 2023.

Legal Standards

“ ‘Prevailing party’ includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Attorney’s fees are allowable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5., subd. (a)(10).)  

Civil Code section 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, subd. (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, subd. (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, subd. (a)(1).) 

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.  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.  (Id., 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. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154: 

“[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.] 

(Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140.) “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.  (Id.; Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 255.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff presents evidence that that he received a favorable judgment from a bench trial on June 12, 2023, and an award of damages based on a contractual dispute.  (Mot. 4:10-12.)  Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff to be the prevailing party. 

Plaintiff’s Counsel states that Plaintiff incurred $68,804.75, based on 134.5 hours of attorney time billed at a rate of $475.00 per hour for time spent on drafting the complaint, conducting discovery, responding to the Defendants’ discovery requests with relevant documents, and responses, conducting the deposition of the Defendant Elodia, defending the plaintiff’s deposition, and interviewing witnesses and expert witnesses. Counsel also contends there was time spent drafting oppositions to and attending hearings for Pretrial Motions, attending Settlement Negotiations and mediations, and finally presenting this case for Trial and preparing all trial related documents.

California Rules of Court rule 3.1700, subdivision (a)(1), provides that “[a] prevailing party who claims costs must serve and file a memorandum of costs within 15 days after the date of service of the notice of entry of judgment or dismissal by the clerk Under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.5 or the date of service of written notice of entry of judgment or dismissal, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is first.”  

Judgment was originally entered on June 29, 2023, however, notice of an amended notice of judgment was entered on July 3, 2023.  (See 7-3-23 Notice of 2nd amended Notice of Judgment.)  A memorandum of costs was filed on July 6, 2023. (See 7-6-23 Memorandum of Costs.) Accordingly, the memorandum of costs was timely filed.

Rule 3.1700, subdivision (a)(1), requires that “[t]he memorandum of costs must be verified by a statement of the party, attorney, or agent that to the best of his or her knowledge the items of cost are correct and were necessarily incurred in the case.” Counsel did not originally file a declaration, however, counsel did attach such declaration to the instant motion filed on August 24, 2023.  (See Lopez Decl.)

Defendant has not filed any objections to the fees or costs.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Pedro Garcia’s Motion to Determine Prevailing Party and to Fix Amount of Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff is deemed to be the prevailing party and is awarded attorney’s fees of $68,804.75.

Moving party to give notice.