Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: BC702157, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: BC702157, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC702157 Hearing Date: July 11, 2023 Dept: C

MCCOY v. OJOSE

CASE NO.: BC702157

HEARING: 7/11/23

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs McCoy, et al.’s unopposed motion for attorney’s fees incurred in appellate review against Maureen Ojose only is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to $34,635.00 in attorney’s fees. The court declines to award a multiplier.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs McCoy, et al. move for an award of attorney’s fees on appeal in the amount of $34,635.00 plus multiplier 1.5 for a total sum of $51,952.50, pursuant to CC § 1942.4(b)(2).

Plaintiffs are former tenants of Defendants’ property. On or about May 18, 2017, Plaintiff Misheal McCoy tripped and fell on the defective staircase leading from the kitchen at the subject property. At trial, Plaintiff showed that she fell as a result of defective condition at the subject property and that the defective condition at the subject property remained unabated until they vacated the premises in October 2017. After a 6-day bench trial, the court found in favor of plaintiffs/respondents.

Thereafter, Defendants/Appellants appealed the decision on 07/27/2020. The Appellate Court affirmed the decision on or about February 23, 2023.

"[I]t is established that fees, if recoverable at all -- pursuant either to

statute or parties' agreement -- are available for services at trial and on

appeal." (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 637.)

Plaintiffs are entitled to award of both costs and statutory fees pursuant to the remittitur and the Lease.

To enable the trial court to determine whether attorney fees should be awarded and in what amount, an attorney should present: (1) evidence, documentary and oral, of the services actually performed; and (2) expert opinion, by the applicant and other lawyers, as to what would be a reasonable fee for such services. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal. App. 3d 553, 558-59.) In many cases, however, the trial court will be aware of the nature and extent of the attorney's services from its observation of the trial proceedings and the pretrial and discovery proceedings reflected in the file. (Id. at 559.) “Generally, the courts will look to equally difficult or complex types of litigation to determine which market rates to apply. The determination of the ‘market rate’ is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the court is located.” (Syers Properties III v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4^th 691, 700-701.)

In California, 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. (Taylor v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 50 Cal.App.5^th 205, 213-214.) If the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the prevailing party, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that the items are unreasonable. (Decoto Sch. Dist. of Alameda County v. M & S Tile Co. (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 310, 316-17.)

The court finds that counsel’s hourly rate of $400.00 is reasonable based on counsel’s experience and cases of this type. Further, the hours billed (i.e. 75.10) is also reasonable. There is no opposition.

Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to $34,635.00 in attorney’s fees.

The court declines to award a multiplier of 1.5 hours as no showing has been made that a multiplier is necessary in this action.