Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: VC066929, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: VC066929, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: VC066929 Hearing Date: July 11, 2023 Dept: C

H.P. AUTOMOTIVE AND TOW, INC. v. CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK

CASE NO.: VC066929

HEARING: 7/11/23

TENTATIVE RULING

I. Defendant City of Huntington Park’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code § 1717 in the amount of $129,820.00 is GRANTED.

II. Defendant City of Huntington Park’s motion for attorneys’ fees on appeal is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant City of Huntington Park moves for an award of attorney’s fees prior to the appeal in the amount of $129,820.00, and for an award of attorney’s fees in connection with the appeal in the amount of $18,565.00.

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.”

The parties’ agreement contained an attorney’s fee provision. (Kang Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Defendant prevailed at summary judgment, which was recently affirmed on appeal. (3/23/23 Remittitur). Defendant is the prevailing party.

Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees

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.)

Defendant identifies the attorneys who worked on the case, their hours, and hourly rates. The court finds that counsels’ rates are reasonable and commensurate with their experience and cases of this type. (Kang Decl., ¶¶ 5-16.)

Additionally, the hours spent on each item appear to be proper charges (Ex. D filed on 6/7/23), and Plaintiff failed to file any opposition objecting to the reasonableness of the fees.

Defendant is also entitled to fees incurred in connection with the appeal. (3/23/23 Remittitur.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the motion was untimely because Exhibit C was missing from the original motion, and the court continued the hearing to allow Defendant to file Exhibit C. However, the subject of that motion pertained to attorney’s fees in the underlying action for $129,820.00. Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees incurred on appeal in the sum of $18,565.00. The court finds that counsels’ rates are reasonable and commensurate with their experience and cases of this type. (Gallagher Decl., ¶¶ 5-16.)

Additionally, the hours spent on each item appear to be proper charges (Ex. D filed on 6/7/23), and Plaintiff failed to file any opposition objecting to the reasonableness of the fees.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.