Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00770 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00770, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00770 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: C

DYNAMIC HOLDINGS LLC v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CURLING CENTER, INC.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00770

HEARING: 2/28/23 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Dynamic Holdings, LLC’s motion for award of attorney’s fees is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiff Dynamic Holdings, LLC moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $18,860.00 plus costs of $801.00.

Prevailing Party

CCP § 1717(a) provides, “In 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.”

¶ 31 of the Lease Agreement provides for recovery of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Plaintiff prevailed at trial, and received a Judgment in te sum of $154,019.15, and costs in the sum of $801.00.

In opposition, Defendant does not dispute the fact that the Lease contains an attorney’s fees provision, and Plaintiff’s prevailing party status. Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party under CC § 1717.

Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees

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 consideration of 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 48, n.23.)

Here, Plaintiff attaches Hufford-Cohen’s declaration, attesting to 15.2 hours billed, totaling $7,220.00, and Mozer’s declaration, attesting to $11,640.00 billed, which includes a statement for services rendered.

In opposition, trial could have been avoided because during settlement discussions, Defendant requested 14 days to allow the ice to melt before Plaintiff takes possession. Plaintiff refused, and the trial court eventually allowed Defendant 30 days to allow the ice to melt, which was the sole issue forcing a trial. Additionally, Defendant contends that some entries are duplicative, and attorney’s fees were already subtracted from the security deposit even though the motion for attorney’s fees is still pending.

Attorney Hufford-Cohen’s hourly rate is $475, Attorney Mozer’s hourly rate is $600. The court finds both counsels’ hourly rates are reasonable, and commensurate with their experience.

The court has reviewed the Billing Record, and finds that counsels’ hours are reasonable. As explained in Plaintiff’s Reply, Hufford-Cohen did part of the trial brief and Mozer did an additional part and edits. (Mozer Dec., ¶¶ 9-10.)

The court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees for work rendered at trial because the settlement involved not just a dispute over the move-out date, but also $900,000 in past due rent as well as Defendant’s claim of millions of dollars in damages. (Mozer Dec., ¶¶ 13-14.)

Finally, Defendant does not dispute costs of $801.00.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees in the sum of $18,860.00. Costs of $801.00 was previously ordered as part of the Judgment signed on November 2, 2022.

The court notes that Plaintiff has deducted $18,860.00 for attorney’s fees and $242,240.97 in back rents from the security deposit. (Opposition, Ex. B.) Since the Judgment for past due rent was for $153,218.15 and this court has now determined that Plaintiff is entitled to $18,860.00 in attorney’s fees, it appears that an offset is due to Defendant. If such is the case, Plaintiff should file a partial or full satisfaction of judgment.