Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 22LBCV00135, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22LBCV00135 Hearing Date: March 9, 2023 Dept: S27
1. Complaint
Plaintiff, The Fort Inn, Inc. filed
this action against Defendant, 1715 W. Anaheim, Inc. for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges Defendant has
refused to vacate the subject property despite being served with a three-day
notice to pay rent or quit and a three-day notice to perform covenants or
quit. The three-day notices are attached
to the complaint as exhibits. The
three-day notice to pay rent or quit demands Defendant pay past-due rent from
11/01/18 to 3/01/22 in the total amount of $227,099.98. The three-day notice to perform or quit demands
Defendant remove all weed and debris, repair and replace all broken wall
coverings, repair and replace all windows, replace the defective and
deteriorating roof covering, and remove all graffiti.
The case proceeded to jury trial on
8/19/22, and the trial continued on 8/22/22.
After jury instructions were given by the Court, Defendant moved for
nonsuit. The Court granted the motion.
2. Motion
for Attorneys’ Fees
a.
Issues Presented
Defendant moves for attorneys’ fees
as the prevailing party in the action.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing (a) Defendant is not the prevailing
party, and (b) claimed fees are excessive.
b. Initial
Note
The parties discuss various items
of costs in the opposition and reply papers.
Plaintiff has a motion to tax costs on calendar on 3/30/23, and the
Court will entertain arguments relating to costs at that time; there is no authority
for considering the costs award in connection with the pending motion for
attorneys’ fees.
c. Prevailing
Party
Plaintiff argues Defendant is not the
prevailing party in this case because (a) Plaintiff prevailed in connection
with a prior UD between the parties, and (b) Plaintiff prevailed in connection
with a companion arbitration proceeding between the parties.
Plaintiff provides a copy of the transcript
of proceedings in the parties’ first UD wherein the parties agreed to a
resolution of the matter between them.
The parties indicated, on the record, that they were agreeing to dismiss
the case without prejudice, and that both parties would waive costs without prejudice. The parties specifically stated, “We are
waiving costs without prejudice. We are
not going to be asking for costs in this case, but if there is another case
down the road that follows up, we would want – we are – both sides are
reserving the right to ask for the fees that they have incurred in this case.”
Plaintiff argues that, because it
obtained almost $50,000 in connection with the prior settlement, Defendant is
not the prevailing party in this case. However,
Defendant obtained a verdict by nonsuit in this case. That is an absolute defense verdict. It is not clear how the prior settlement could
have possibly contemplated the parties reserving the right to recover costs and
fees in the future if a complete defense verdict would not ever be enough for
Defendant to recover costs. This argument,
therefore, fails.
Plaintiff also argues the parties
had a companion arbitration proceeding pending, and Plaintiff ultimately
obtained part of the relief it sought in this case, back rent, by way of that proceeding. Plaintiff was free to arbitrate and litigate its
rights in as many forums as it chose to do so.
The issue in this action, however, is whether Defendant was the absolute
prevailing party. It was. Plaintiff can seeks fees in connection with the
arbitration if Plaintiff believes it prevailed there and is entitled to fees
(notably, Defendant establishes in reply that the arbitrator determined IT, not
Plaintiff, was the prevailing party in the arbitration).
The Court finds Defendant is entitled
to its attorneys’ fees per the parties’ contract, as it obtained a complete defense
verdict in this case and was therefore the prevailing party as a matter of law.
d. Amount
of Fees
The final issue is the amount of
fees. Plaintiff argues (a) Defendant is
improperly seeking to recover fees incurred in the first case, and (b)
Defendant’s fees in this case are inflated.
As noted above, the parties expressly
agreed that attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the first proceeding would be
recoverable in the second proceeding based on the ultimate prevailing party
determination. That term of the settlement
would be a nullity if a complete defense verdict did not entitle Defendant to
an award of its attorneys’ fees incurred in both this action and the prior
proceeding in the event of a complete defense verdict.
Plaintiff also argues Defense
Counsel billed ten hours and 8.5 hours on the two days that the case was in
trial, but trial was only in session for 6.5 hours. Defendant correctly notes, in reply, that
attorneys typically work many more hours while a trial is proceeding than the
hours that are actually spent in front of the jury. The Court finds ten hours and 8.5 hours
objectively reasonable for trial dates, and will not reduce the claimed billing
in this regard.
e. Conclusion
Defendant obtained an unequivocal
defense verdict in this case, and is therefore entitled to recover its
attorneys’ fees per the parties’ contract.
Plaintiff failed to show any reason fees should not be awarded, or any
grounds for reducing the claimed fees. The
motion for attorneys’ fees is therefore granted in its entirety.
Defendant is ordered to give
notice.
Parties who intend to submit
on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as
directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative
and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the
party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting
on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party
should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.