TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Ten Five Sixty Wilshire Condo Association and Manny Diaz’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees of $19,761.50 is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $9,960.

Defendants Ten Five Sixty Wilshire Condo Association and Manny Diaz to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendants Ten Five Sixty Wilshire Condo Association and Manny Diaz (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order awarding them attorney fees in the amount of $19,761.50 against Plaintiff Abigail Slotkin (“Plaintiff”) on the ground that Defendants prevailed in this action after the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend, thereby disposing of Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action.

It is axiomatic that a party is permitted to recover reasonable attorney fees, when authorized by contract, statute, or law, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A)-(C). Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a), further provides, in relevant part:

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.

Plaintiff does not dispute there is a contractual provision for attorney fees; rather, Plaintiff states it is not “right, fair and/or equitable” to require Plaintiff to pay attorney fees, and she argues that defense against a tort disability discrimination claim is not covered by the provision. Article XIII, Enforcement, section 13.9, of the applicable covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&R’s”) provides as follows:

In the event that the Association takes action to enforce or interpret the Association’s governing documents, to restrain violations or to determine the rights and duties of any person under this Declaration, whether or not such action is in the form of a formal court proceeding or by involvement of the Association’s legal counsel, the Association shall be entitled to actual attorneys’ fees and costs plus, in the case of a proceeding, any other relief awarded.

(Mot., Counts Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B.) Section 13.1 of Article XIII, Enforcement, also states that Defendant Ten Five Sixty Wilshire Condo Association or any owner “shall be entitled to recover from any Owner against whom such restrictions, conditions, covenants, rules, reservations, liens and charges are enforced, all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred thereby.” (Ibid.) While the attorney fees provisions do not expressly allow Defendants to recover their attorney fees when an owner seeks to enforce the CC&R’s and Defendants prevail, Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (c), provides that "[i]n an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs,” and it is undisputed that Defendants prevailed in this action.

Further, insofar as Plaintiff argues that tort disability discrimination claims are not covered by the attorney fees provision, the provisions provide for the recovery of attorney fees in any action to enforce or interpret the CC&R’s, and it is clear that Plaintiff’s claims arose out of her belief that she was entitled to certain rights under the CC&R’s. Thus, the Court finds that both contract and tort claims fall within the purview of the attorney fees provision. Finally, as to equitable concerns, Plaintiff has not provided evidence of an inability to pay the attorney fees, such that the Court cannot conclude that equity prohibits attorney fees simply because Plaintiff alleged disability discrimination.

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.” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) “[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.” (Margolin v. Reg’l Planning Comm’n (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.)

While the Court generally uses detailed billing sheets to determine whether the amount of work performed was reasonable, “[i]t is well established that California courts do not require detailed time records, and trial courts have discretion to award fees based on declarations of counsel describing the work they have done and the court’s own view of the number of hours reasonably spent.” (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 698.) Here, the only work performed on this action was preparation of three demurrers, three replies for the same, the present motion for attorney fees, and a reply for the same. As to the demurrers, the number of hours spent working on the demurrers is excessive given that the demurrers did not differ from each other substantially, and if an associate spent approximately 8 hours working on each demurrer and reply, it is not clear why 17.2 hours of partner work was required across the three demurrers. The number of hours spent on the present fee motion is also excessive; again, if an associate spent eight hours preparing the motion and reply, it is not clear why another eight hours of work by a partner would be required.

The Court finds it proper to award a total of six hours of associate work on each demurrer and reply, for a total of 18 hours for the three demurrers at the rate of $305 per hour ($5,490), plus one hour of partner work per demurrer and one hour of appearance time per demurrer by a partner, for six hours of partner work at the rate of $330 per hour ($1,980), plus six hours of associate work preparing the present motion and reply at the rate of $305 per hour ($1,830), plus one hour of partner work on this motion and one hour of appearance time by a partner, for two hours at the rate of $330 per hour ($660). Accordingly, Defendants Ten Five Sixty Wilshire Condo Association and Manny Diaz’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees of $19,761.50 is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $9,960.