Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV00943, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV00943 Hearing Date: November 8, 2023 Dept: M
CASE NAME: DE 8484
Wilshire LLC v. Pacific Holdings
CASE NO.: 22SMCV00943
MOTION: Motion
for Attorneys’ Fees
HEARING DATE: 11/8/2023
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.)
Analysis
Plaintiff DE 8484 Wilshire, LLC moves
for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendant Pacific Holdings in
the total sum of $21,264.34. This includes $19,264.34 in attorneys’ fees billed
for this case plus costs and expenses, and $2,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and
costs for this motion. There is no opposition.
There is no dispute that Plaintiff
is the prevailing party to this action. On April 13, 2023, this Court held a
trial/hearing on Supplemental Money Judgment. The Court awarded Plaintiff
unpaid rent and other charges in addition to fees incurred. Furthermore, the
Lease in this unlawful detainer action provides for attorneys’ fees in this
matter. Both the Lease and the Consent Agreement explicitly provide for the
recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs for the prevailing party in any action
concerning the Lease or Consent Agreement. (See Compendium of Evidence Ex. B.)
Pursuant to Section 20.16 of the Lease, the prevailing party in litigation
which arises out of or in relation to the Lease “shall be entitled receive its
costs (not limited to court costs), expenses and reasonable attorneys’ fees
from the non-prevailing party as the same may be awarded by the court.” (Id., Ex.
B.)
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks a rate of
$270 per hour for partner time and $230 per hour for senior counsel and
associate time. (Hinds Decl. ¶ 10.) The Court finds these hourly rates
reasonable, as they are below the market rates charged by attorneys with similar
skills and experience at comparable law firms for the same types of cases in
Los Angeles. (Id., see also Brackins Decl. ¶ 7; Franks Decl. ¶ 5.) Counsel
expended a total of 62.1 hours in attorney time resulting in a total of
$14,307.00 in legal fees incurred by Plaintiff prior to the drafting of this
motion. Counsel anticipates incurring approximately $2,000 in legal fees and
costs associated with this motion. Based on the verified billing records, the
Court concurs that these fees are reasonable.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED
in the requested amount of $21,264.34.