Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2021-00016126-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00016126-CU-OR-CTL JOHNSON VS MITCHELL [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Candace Mitchell and Patrick Garcia's motion for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED as set forth below.

Attorney Fees Mitchell and Garcia argue they are entitled to attorney fees based on the fee provision in Paragraph 20 of the lease agreement. They argue they are the prevailing parties by virtue of having succeeded on all claims alleged against them in the complaint. They argue that even though Garcia was not in fact a party to the lease, he is entitled to fees because the complaint alleged that he was a party and he was required to defend claims based on the lease. They argue that any claims outside the scope of the fee provision were inextricably intertwined with the claims for which fees are recoverable, such that no apportionment is required. Finally, they submit evidence describing the work performed, total time spent, and hourly rates charged.

Plaintiff Doriena Johnson did not file an opposition disputing Mitchell and Garcia's entitlement to fees or the reasonableness of the fees claimed. By not opposing the motion, Johnson has conceded that it is meritorious. (See Super. Ct. San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 2.1.19.B.) Accordingly, the court awards the full amount of fees requested-$40,331.

Costs In their motion, Mitchell and Garcia request a total of $4,457.52 in costs. However, in their verified memorandum of costs, they only request a total of $3,587.52 (exclusive of attorney fees). No explanation is given for the discrepancy.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, costs must be claimed in a memorandum of costs and contested by way of a motion to strike or tax. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1034, subd. (a); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700; Gorman v. Tassajara Dev. Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 69–70.) Here, there is no evidence the parties stipulated to dispense with the usual formalities for claiming and challenging costs. As such, only those costs set forth in the memorandum are at issue.

Johnson did not file a timely motion to strike or tax, nor any opposition that could be construed as such a Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2988987  38 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JOHNSON VS MITCHELL [IMAGED]  37-2021-00016126-CU-OR-CTL motion. As such, Mitchell and Garcia are entitled to their claimed costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(4); Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238, 260.) Accordingly, the court awards the full amount of costs requested in the memorandum-$3,587.52.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2988987  38