TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Cary Bren’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $97,965.00.

Defendant Cary Bren to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant Cary Bren (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order awarding him attorney fees in the amount of $165,008.25 against Plaintiff JAJ3, LLC (“Plaintiff”) on the ground that Defendant prevailed in this action after Plaintiff dismissed its breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant causes of action, and the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend, thereby disposing of Plaintiff’s remaining causes of action. Defendant argues that Plaintiff sought to recover its attorney fees under the operating agreements at issue in this action, thereby entitling Defendant to recover attorney fees, and Defendant’s requested attorney fees are reasonable.

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.

Here, the agreements underlying Plaintiff’s complaint allow the prevailing party to recover attorney fees. (See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 5, Ex. A, at § 7.2; Ex. B, at § 20(c).) While Defendant was not a party to these agreements, Plaintiff asserted he was, and the Court ultimately ruled that Defendant could not be liable under these agreements when he did not sign the agreements, and there is no mention of him in either agreement. (See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 43.) On August 10, 2023, the Court entered judgment in Defendant’s favor as to Plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and intentional interference with contractual relations; Defendant had previously dismissed his claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant. It follows that Defendant is entitled to an award of attorney fees in his favor where Plaintiff asserted claims under agreements so providing, and Defendant prevailed on those claims. Insofar as Plaintiff argues his claim for breach of fiduciary duty was not one warranting fees, “an attorney fee provision applicable to ‘any dispute under the agreement’ is sufficiently broad to include the assertion of a . . . breach of fiduciary duty cause[] of action.” (Gil v. Mansano (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 739, 744.) Thus, Defendant is entitled to fees here.

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 initial motion included only heavily redacted billing sheets, which precluded a meaningful analysis by the Court as to whether the work performed was necessary to the litigation, the Court ordered Defendant to provide detailed billing sheets under seal without redactions for the Court’s review. The Court has reviewed the billing sheets and finds that counsel’s rates are reasonable, but much of the work could have been performed by an associate rather than a partner billing at $995 per hour. Accordingly, the Court finds it proper to award Defendant for 209.7 hours of work at the rate of $450 per hour, which accounts for lower associate billing rates given the lack of complexity of this action but the need for partner work on occasion, plus six hours preparing the present motion, one hour preparing the reply, and one hour appearing at the hearing, for a total of eight hours of work on the present motion, at the rate of $450 per hour. Accordingly, Defendant Cary Bren’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $97,965.00.