Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV00435, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV00435 Hearing Date: November 22, 2023 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Englanoff, et
al., v. Rechnitz, et al.
CASE NO.: 22SMCV00435
MOTION: Motion
for Attorneys’ Fees Post-Appeal
HEARING DATE: 11/22/2023
Legal
Standard
With respect to attorney fees and costs,
unless they are specifically provided for by statute (e.g., CCP §§ 1032, et
seq.), the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law
is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties.¿(CCP § 1021.) The
prevailing party on a contract, which specifically provides for attorney fees
and costs incurred to enforce the agreement, is entitled to reasonable attorney
fees in addition to other costs.¿(Civ. Code § 1717(a); CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5(a)(10)(A).)¿The
court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine the prevailing party
and shall fix, as an element of the costs of suit, the reasonable attorney
fees.¿(Civ. Code § 1717(a), (b).)¿Any notice of motion to claim attorney fees
as an element of costs under shall be served and filed before or at the same
time the memorandum of costs is served and filed; if only attorney fees are
claimed as costs, the notice of motion shall be served and filed within the
time specified in CRC 3.1700 for filing a memorandum of costs.¿(CRC 3.1702; Gunlock
Corp. v. Walk on Water, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1303, fn. 1.)
“It is well established that the
determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the
discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence
of an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64
Cal.App.3d 618, 623 624.) 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.) The lodestar
figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the
case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services
provided. (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [discussing
factors relevant to proper attorneys’ fees award].) Such an approach anchors
the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the
attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id.
at 48, fn. 23.) The factors considered in determining the modification of the
lodestar include “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2)
the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of
the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent
nature of the fee award.” (Mountjoy v. Bank of Am. (2016) 245
Cal.App.4th 266, 271.)
In challenging attorney fees as excessive
because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging
party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and
citations to the evidence.¿(Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v.
California Ins. Guaranty Assoc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)¿General
arguments that fees claimed are
excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice. (Ibid.)
It is undisputed that Defendants are
the prevailing party in this action and on appeal. Plaintiff appealed
the judgment in this action by filing a notice of appeal on August 29, 2022. Plaintiff requested that the
appeal be dismissed, and a remittitur was issued on May 15, 2023. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to
attorneys’ fees for their defense of Plaintiff’s appeal pursuant to the Lease
agreement between the parties.
Defendants evidence their attorneys’
fees. Counsel contemporaneously documented their time and submit
declarations attesting to the tasks completed and the time spent on such tasks
and provide evidence in support of their requested rates. Importantly, Defendants
engaged outside appellate counsel to assist on the appeal with trial counsel. Defendants
provide evidence for their appellate counsel’s experience justifying his $550
per hour rate. Appellate counsel spent time researching and working on a rough
draft for the Respondent’s Opening Brief, including a motion for judicial
notice, expending approximately 14.8 hours on this appeal. At a rate of $550
per hour, the lodestar would be $8,140.00 for this work. Defendants also seek
fees for the work of their trial counsel on the appeal, which included 4.3
hours of work at $475.00 per hour. Therefore, Defendants seek a lodestar of
$10,182.50 in fees. Defendants
also seek a lodestar multiplier of 1.5 to account for the contingency basis of
this action.
The Court finds the lodestar
reasonable under the circumstances. However, the Court is not inclined to grant
a multiplier. This litigation did not involve complex or novel issues. This
action was a relatively simple unlawful detainer action, which was resolved on summary
judgment based on the plain language of a single statute. Plaintiff initiated
an appeal, but dropped the appeal before any substantial briefing was due.
Defense counsel does not substantiate their claims that this action precluded
them from seeking other work. Thus, the Court will not impose a modifier.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED
in the total amount of $10,182.50.