Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV00714, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV00714 Hearing Date: June 10, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE
NAME: Simply
Crystal Clean, LLC v. Pinhero Construction, Inc., et al.
Defendant Pinhero Construction, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
TENTATIVE
RULING
The Court GRANTS Defendant Pinhero Construction, Inc.’s motion for attorney fees and costs in the reduced amount of $67,014.88.
Defendant Pinhero Construction, Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract action. On March 10, 2023, plaintiff Simply Crystal Clean, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Pinhero Construction, Inc. (Pinhero), Azusa Pacific University (APU) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 50, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract.
On April 29, 2025, Pinhero moved for attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.
LEGAL
STANDARD
“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).)
The party seeking fees and costs bears the burden to show "the fees incurred were allowable, were reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount." (Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 104.) To satisfy this burden, evidence and descriptions of billable tasks must be presented in sufficient detail, enabling the court to evaluate whether the case was overstaffed, the time attorneys spent on specific claims, and the reasonableness of the hours expended. (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 486-487.)
“A trial court assessing attorney
fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful
compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each
attorney… involved in the presentation of the case.” (Christian Research
Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) “The reasonableness
of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined
from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the
complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the
amount of time involved. [Citation.] The court may also consider whether the
amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work. [Citation.]” (Wilkerson
v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)
“The courts repeatedly have stated that the trial court is in the
best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her
courtroom [citation], and this includes the determination of the hourly rate
that will be used in the lodestar calculus.[Citation.]” (569 E. Cnty.
Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th
426, 436-437.)
DISCUSSION
Summary
of Arguments
Pinhero
seeks attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $67,130.67 based on the
judgment entered in Defendants’ favor. Pinhero contends the Master Servicing
Agreement underlying this action contains an attorney fees provision which
provides the prevailing party attorney fees and costs for any disputes
thereunder. Pinhero contends it is the prevailing party here by virtue of the
judgment being entered in Defendants’ favor on all causes of action. Pinhero
contends the fees requested here are reasonable given the two-year duration of
this case. Pinhero contends it regularly attempted to settle this matter,
propounded limited discovery, and participated in private mediation. Pinhero
indicates its counsel’s hourly rates are low compared to comparable lawyers in
the Orange County/Los Angeles County community for matters of this nature. Pinhero
contends it sought to keep its fees as low as possible in spite of the
complexity and considerable length of time required to resolve this action. Pinhero
contends its counsel’s rates are reasonable given its counsel’s experience,
education, and qualifications, and that its counsel kept fees lower by using
paralegals with lower hourly rates. Pinhero also contends there are numerous
cases supporting the reasonableness of the fees and costs Pinhero incurred in
this matter. Pinhero also contends it is entitled to $2,987.17 in costs.
Analysis
The Court finds Pinhero is the prevailing party here for purposes of recovering attorney fees. (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (b)(1); Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A).) Paragraph 53 of the Master Servicing Agreement provides that, “[t]he prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to recover all attorney fees, expert witness fees and all other costs incurred in connection with the prosecution of such legal proceeding.” (Loftis Pacheco Decl., Ex. 2, ¶ 53; Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) Pinhero prevailed at trial by having judgment entered in Pinhero’s favor on Plaintiff’s two causes of action for breach of contract and common counts. (Minute Order (2/27/25); Judgment (4/2/25); Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (b)(1).)
After reviewing the billing statements and supporting documents, the Court also finds Pinhero’s requested attorney fees reasonable. A verified fee bill is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were reasonable. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) Pinhero presented verified fee bills for legal services. (Loftis Pacheco Decl., Exs. 4-5.) Plaintiff did not oppose this motion or otherwise challenge Pinhero’s attorney fees calculations. (See Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564 [burden is on challenging party to point to specific items challenged with sufficient argument and citations to the evidence, and failure to raise specific challenges in the trial court forfeits the claim on appeal]; see also D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion, "it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes" that ground].) Having reviewed the verified bill for legal services and the declaration of counsel, the Court finds $64,143.50 in attorney fees for a case that has been in litigation for approximately two years and went to trial is reasonable. (Loftis Pacheco Decl., ¶¶ 12, 25; see 569 E. Cnty. Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc., supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at pp. 436-437.)
With respect to costs, Plaintiff did not seek to tax costs or otherwise object to any requested costs. However, the Court finds a few minor improperly included costs, namely postage and photocopying costs, which are not permitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (b)(3); Loftis Pacheco Decl., Ex. 3, Attach. 1H [“Fee for Certified License History: $67.00” and “FedEx Fees: $48.79”].) The Court will deduct $115.79 from Pinhero’s total requested costs. Pinhero’s requested costs otherwise appear proper.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion, and awards Pinhero attorney fees and costs in the reduced amount of $67,014.88, i.e., $64,143.50 in attorney fees plus $2,871.38 in costs.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Pinhero Construction, Inc.’s motion for attorney fees and costs in the reduced amount of $67,014.88.
Defendant Pinhero Construction, Inc. is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.