Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV04582, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04582    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           1401-1427 Montana LLC, v. Erin McKenna’s Bakery Cal LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV04582

MOTION:                  Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

HEARING DATE:   2/13/2025

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 1407-1427 Montana LLC moves for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants Erin McKenna’s Bakery Cal LLC and Erin McKenna, jointly and severally, in the sum of $19,051.75 and $809.75 as costs. (CCP §§ 1021, 1033.5, 1717.)

Pursuant to the Judgment, Plaintiff is the prevailing party. (McGarrigle Decl., ¶5, Ex. “D,” Para. 3 of the Judgment.) Plaintiff explains that the Parties entered into a “Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release” dated December 20, 2023 (the “SAG”) to resolve the above-captioned matter and claims in the first amended complaint. The SAG, among other things, required Defendants to make certain monthly payments to Plaintiff from December 2023 through October 2024. Defendants’ performance under the SAG was secured by the parties’ concurrently executed Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (For Money) (the “Stipulation”), which formed part of the consideration for the SAG, and which Plaintiff held in trust in accord with the terms of the SAG in the event Defendants were to default thereunder. (McGarrigle Decl. ¶¶ 2-4, Exs. A-C.)

Plaintiff demonstrates its reasonable and necessary legal fees incurred in successfully enforcing the Lease, the SAG and obtaining Judgment pursuant to the Stipulation. Plaintiff provides counsel’s hours expended and the reasonable value of the time as follows: Counsel Patrick C. McGarrigle spent 13.9 hours at $595.00 per hour, which yields a lodestar amount of $8,270.50. Counsel Aidan P. McGarrigle spent 35.2 hours litigating this action at $300.00 per hour, which yields a lodestar amount of $10,560.00. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to $18,830.50 in fees.

Costs are awarded in the noticed amount of $809.75.