Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01311, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01311    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Kapa Investment v. Collision Craft Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01311

MOTION:                  Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

HEARING DATE:   5/2/2023

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

Timeliness

Plaintiff argues that the motion was untimely served.  “A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court-including attorney's fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in the trial court-must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 in an unlimited civil case or under rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)(1), emphasis added.)

California Rules of Court, rule 8.108 generally regards extensions on the time to appeal, which applies to motions for attorneys’ fees up to and including judgment. Relevantly, Rule 8.108(b)(1)(B) provides:

(b) Motion for new trial

If any party serves and files a valid notice of intention to move for a new trial, the following extensions of time apply:

(1)  If the motion for a new trial is denied, the time to appeal from the judgment is extended for all parties until…

(B)  30 days after denial of the motion by operation of law[.]

The parties agree the Court denied the motion for new trial by operation of law on January 30, 2023. The parties agree that 30 days from that date was March 2, 2023. The Defendants filed the instant motion for attorney’s fees on February 23, 2023. However, Defendants served the motion on March 10, 2023. As noted above, the motion for a claim of attorneys’ fees must be “served and filed” within that time. Thus, the motion was eight days late. The motion is therefore untimely served.

Defendants do not explain why the motion would be timely. Defendants cite the fact they served the motion 51 days prior to the hearing while the motion for new trial was still pending. Defendants note that the motion was served in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. Even though Defendants complied with section 1005, they did not comply with the stricter provisions of California Rules of Court, rules 3.1702(b)(1), 8.104(a) & 8.108(b)(1)(B).

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.