Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 21NWCV00686, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00686, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00686 Hearing Date: March 13, 2024 Dept: C

TESUS, INC. v. LBA RV-COMPANY XVIII, LP

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00686

HEARING: 3/13/24 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Tesus, Inc.’s motion for attorney fees against LBA RV-Company XVIII, LP is granted in part. Defendant is entitled to $36,840.00 in attorney fees.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is a breach of contract action. Defendant and Cross-Complainant seeks to recover attorney fees in the amount of $36,946.00 for 123.2 hours of legal work.

Prevailing Party

In a contract action, the prevailing party is the party who recovered greater relief in an action “on the contract.” (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (b)(1).)

In the present case, there is no dispute that Defendant and Cross-Complainant is the prevailing party in the action and is entitled to attorney fees. Thus, the only question to be determined by this motion is the amount of the award.

Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees

Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a) states that in a contract action, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs 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 shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.

Lodestar is the objective starting point to determine if attorney’s fees are reasonable. (Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1242.) Lodestar is calculated by using the reasonable rate for comparable services in the local community, multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent on the case. (Ibid.) Lodestar requires the court to determine the reasonable number of hours expended for the work performed. (Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1320.)

Here, Defendant and Cross-Complainant seeks to recover attorney fees in the amount of $36,946.00 for 123.2 hours of legal work, with attorney David M. Lawrence billing at $300.00 per hour. (Decl. Lawrence, ¶¶ 6, 7.)

Counsel’s Hourly Rates

When determining a reasonable hourly rate, courts consider whether the stated rates “are within the range of reasonable rates charged by and judicially awarded to comparable attorneys for comparable work.” (Children’s Hosp. & Med. Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 783.)

Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s counsel states that his rate of $300.00 per hour is “more than reasonable” in the Southern California area for an attorney of his experience in this type of case. (Dec. Lawrence, ¶ 6.)

Applying its knowledge of the case, the Court finds Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s hourly rate to be reasonable.

Time Expended

Defendant and Cross-Complainant seeks to recover attorney fees in the amount of $36,946.00 for 123.2 hours of legal work. Defendant and Cross-Complainant’s Counsel submits an itemized list of time entries detailing the legal work on this matter. (Decl. Lawrence, ¶ 7, Ex. 9.)

The moving party also bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. (Christian Research. Inst. v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) “Testimony of an attorney as to the number of hours worked on a particular case is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records.” (Ibid.)

The Court applies its knowledge of the case and concludes that the hours incurred are reasonable. This is not the inquiry of an auditor, but like a review by a knowledgeable general counsel. (See, e.g., Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 642 (trial court should not “become enmeshed in a meticulous analysis of every detailed facet of the professional representation”); Alan S. v. Super. Ct. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4^th 238, 254 (trial court “should try to get the ‘big picture’ of the case” (Family Law attorney fees procedure).) However, the Court removes from the award work performed by “KAP” on November 11, 2021, and “JMS” on July 15, 2022. These entries appear to be erroneously included.

Thus, the Court awards 122.8 hours of attorney work at $300.00 per hour for a total of $36,840.00 in attorney fees.