TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Bold Holdings, LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the Amount of $30,612.50 and Costs in the Amount of $794.79 is CONTINUED to a date TBD at hearing. On or before the date provided, Plaintiff Bold Holdings, LLC shall file a supplemental declaration describing the work performed and including billing sheets with sufficient detail to allow the Court to determine whether the work was reasonable and necessary to the litigation. Defendant Daniel Ruderman may file a responsive brief of no more than five (5) pages on or before the hearing date.

Plaintiff Bold Holdings, LLC to give notice. 

REASONING

Plaintiff Bold Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the Court for an order awarding it attorney fees and costs against Defendant Daniel Ruderman (“Defendant”) in the amount of $30,612.50 in fees and $794.79 in costs on the ground that it is entitled to its reasonable costs in enforcing the settlement agreement between the parties, which provides that “[i]n an Event of Default as described in Section 4 of the Agreement, a monetary judgment shall be entered in Bold Holdings’ favor against Ruderman in the amount of the Total Indebtedness, less any payments received by Bold Holdings pursuant to the Agreement, plus pre- and post-judgment interest and Bold Holdings’ attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing the Agreement.” (Mot., p. 6, ll. 12-15.) Plaintiff has not provided an authenticated copy of the agreement with this motion. However, the Court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of the terms of the Second and Final Settlement Agreement and Release provided with the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment signed by the parties and filed on the Court’s docket on November 12, 2024.

In California, the Court may award a prevailing party its reasonable attorney fees when authorized by contract. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A)) “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, subd. (a).) It is beyond dispute that Plaintiff was the prevailing party here, as it had a stipulated judgment in its favor requiring Defendant to pay $67,000 due to failure to pay Plaintiff as required under a promissory note and subsequent settlement agreement. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs 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.)

Plaintiff has not sufficiently set forth the basis for its fees request. “It 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.) Nonetheless, it is axiomatic that the hours worked must be reasonable, and the Court cannot conclude that 11 hours of attorney work billed at the rate of $1,145 per hour, 20.9 hours of attorney work billed at the rate of $855 per hour, and 0.4 hours of paralegal work at the rate of $370 per hour are reasonable amounts as to a simple case to enforce a settlement agreement. Plaintiff has provided only block billing descriptions for the work performed, and the Court cannot conclude that the hours were reasonable when counsel bills at a high rate per hour, i.e., the rates imply that the time spent working on the matters could have been done in less time given counsel’s years of experience. As to costs, the Court also notes that Plaintiff seeks to recover costs for legal research expenses, which is not contemplated as an allowable cost under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Bold Holdings, LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the Amount of $30,612.50 and Costs in the Amount of $794.79 is CONTINUED to a date TBD at hearing. On or before the date provided, Plaintiff Bold Holdings, LLC shall file a supplemental declaration describing the work performed and including billing sheets with sufficient detail to allow the Court to determine whether the work was reasonable and necessary to the litigation. Defendant Daniel Ruderman may file a responsive brief of no more than five (5) pages on or before the hearing date.