Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00344 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00344, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00344 Hearing Date: April 20, 2023 Dept: C

NARANJO v. SANCHEZ

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00344

HEARING: 04/20/23

ADD ON 1

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. With Respect to the Hearing Re: Status of Sale, the Court notes that the Receiver’s Second Report FILED on April 17, 2023 states that escrow closed on March 21, 2023, and that net proceeds for the Seller was $164,552.32. The proceeds are being held in trust by the Law Office of Steve Lopez.

II. Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

Code of Civil Procedure §874.010 provides that the costs of partition “include: (a) [r]easonable attorney’s fees incurred or paid by a party for the common benefit…” (CCP §874.010(a).) In determining whether to award attorney’s fees, whether the services in question are for the common benefit must be decided on the facts and circumstances in each case. Nevertheless, the case authorities hold that attorney’s fees may be awarded for litigating contested issues in partition actions if that litigation is integral to the partition action. Moreover, “the court shall apportion the costs of partition among the parties in proportion to their interests or make such other apportionment may be equitable.” (CCP §874.040.)

The Court is limited to only awarding a reasonable fee, and to fees incurred in the partition action itself which benefit all the property owners—costs are not included. (CCP §874.010(a).)

Here, the parties are engaged in ongoing litigation in an effort to dispose of the Subject Property jointly owned, such that the instant partition action is in the common interest of both parties. Plaintiff has established an entitlement to attorney’s fees.

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.”].

Plaintiff’s motion claims an entitlement to $21,232.50, but ultimately seeks an apportioned payout in the amount of $10,616.25 for attorney’s fees against Defendants ($475/hr. x 44.70 hours, apportioned between the parties). Plaintiff additionally seeks to recover $1,991.38.

In Opposition, Defendant fails to articulate any reasonable basis as to why this Court should not award Plaintiff attorney’s fees under CCP §874.010.

The Court has reviewed Attorney Lopez declaration and finds that Plaintiff has established an entitlement to reasonable fees in the amount of $10,616.25 to be paid out of the common fund (Defendant’s share of the sale proceeds). The Court’s determination is undertaken in the exercise of its discretion to determine whether or not rates or hours are reasonable. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501.)

Defendant does not challenge Plaintiffs’ claimed costs. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed request for costs in the amount of $1,991.38.