Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2022-01249903, Date: 2023-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Balboa Capital Corporation

Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order granting Plaintiff $17,105.00 in attorney fees and $1,091.32 in costs pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.

Civil Code section 1717 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.” (Civ. Code, § 1717(a).)

The determination ordinarily begins with ascertainment of the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774; see Mountjoy v. Bank of America, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 271-282 [discussing general principles governing attorney fee awards].)

Here, the Equipment Finance Agreement (“EFA”) underlying Plaintiff’s action provides, in relevant part: “You shall reimburse us for all costs we incur in enforcing our rights including our attorney’s fees and costs of repossession, repair, storage and remarketing of the Collateral.” (Declaration of Katherine S. Agbayani, Ex. 2.) “You” is defined as Defendant New Beginnings Health Care and “us,” “we,” and “our” are defined as Plaintiff. (Ibid.) The EFA includes a Guaranty signed by Defendant Patricia Deckert, which states that Deckert guarantees to Plaintiff the payment and performance when due of all of the obligations of New Beginnings Health Care under the EFA. By signing the Guaranty, Deckert also “agree[d] to pay [Plaintiff] all [of its] expenses in enforcing this Guaranty.” (Ibid.)

This evidence is sufficient to show that the EFA between Plaintiff and Defendants specifically provides that attorney fees and costs shall be awarded to Plaintiff if Plaintiff is found to be the prevailing party.

On 12/19/2022, the Court granted Plaintiff summary adjudication as to the 1st, 3rd, and 4th causes of action. (ROA 45.) On 01/04/23, Plaintiff dismissed the 2nd cause of action without prejudice. (ROA 49.) On 01/23/23, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. (ROA 50.) The Judgment awards Plaintiff monetary damages in the amount of $136,279.81 along with pre-judgment interest in the amount of $13,662.78. It also awards Plaintiff costs and attorney fees in an amount to be determined per Plaintiff’s motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff is indisputably the prevailing party under these circumstances.

Attached to the Agbayani declaration as Exhibit 1 is a spreadsheet of the billing entries of Plaintiff’s attorneys, paralegals, and other legal staff members. The Agbayani declaration also provides the experience for the attorneys who worked on this matter: Michelle A. Chiongson, Marisa D. Poulos, Brian Da Costa, and Katherine S. Agbayani. (Agbayani Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Ms. Chiongson, Ms. Poulos,

and Ms. Agbayani bill at the hourly rate of $395.00; Mr. Da Costa bills at the hourly rate of $295.00. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff has spent a total of $16,117.50 in attorney fees in the prosecution of this action and anticipates incurring an additional $987.50 in association with this Motion. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiff has also incurred $1,091.32 in costs, as reflected in the Memorandum of Costs filed on 02/08/23. (Id., ¶ 11; ROA 63.)

Given the experience of counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged. Further, given the work performed in this action, which includes the preparation of a meritorious motion for summary adjudication, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish the reasonableness of the number of hours expended, which reflects a total of 41.5 hours of attorney time. There appears to be no evidence that Plaintiff overlitigated this action, padded the bills, or billed for duplicative tasks.

The Memorandum of Costs shows that the costs claimed by Plaintiff are proper and include $435.00 in filing fees for the Complaint, $500.00 in filing fees for the MSA, and $156.32 in service of process fees. When the items appear to be proper on their face, “the burden is on the objecting party to show them to be unnecessary or unreasonable.” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.) Defendants have not opposed the instant Motion and have therefore not shown that any of the costs claimed are unnecessary or unreasonable.

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for $17,105.00 in attorney fees and $1,091.32 in costs.

Plaintiff to give notice.