Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 19STLC06770, Date: 2023-07-12 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

KNB Enterprises, Inc., v. Great Eastern Enterprises, Inc.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Great Eastern Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $25,662.50.

ANALYSIS:

On July 19, 2019, Plaintiff KNB Enterprises, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Cross-Defendant”) filed an action against Defendant Great Eastern Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Cross-Complainant”). On August 30, 2019, Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant. On November 2, 2021, judgment was entered for Cross-Complainant and against Cross-Defendants in the statutorily prescribed maximum amount of $25,000. On January 27, 2023, the Appellate Division affirmed this Court’s judgment and issued the Remittitur on April 4, 2023.

Cross-Complainant filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the Amount of $25,662.50 (the “Motion”) on May 1, 2023. No opposition was filed.

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4), (b).) Attorney’s fees are recoverable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) “A notice of motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702, subd. (b)(1).) In a limited civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 30 days after service of a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.822, subd. (a)(1).)

Cross-Complainant’s Motion is timely and it is undisputed that Cross-Complainant is the prevailing party as a judgment was entered in its favor on April 4, 2023.

Plaintiff alleged breach of contract against Defendant, and Cross-Complainant alleged breach of contract against Cross-Defendant in its cross-complaint. The judgment deemed Cross-Complainant the prevailing party. (Mot., Exhib. C.)

Cross-Complainant seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to the Lease, which specifically provides for such an award both before and after entry of judgment. Paragraph 31 of the Lease states:

If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding involving the Premises whether founded in tort, contract or equity, or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereafter defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.

(Mot., Exhib. A) Paragraph 31 defines “Prevailing Party” as “without limitation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought, as the case may be, whether by compromise, settlement, judgment, or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker of its claim or defense.” (Mot., Exhib. A.)

Here, the judgment was obtained in favor of Cross-Complainant and fully affirmed by the Appellate Division which also awarded Cross-Complainant costs on appeal. As such, the Court finds that Cross-Complainant is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees post-judgment and on appeal pursuant to the provisions in the Lease.

Cross-Complainant states that it incurred $20,720.00 in attorney’s fees post-judgment and on appeal from services rendered by its current counsel, Law Offices of Roger C. Hsu. (Hsu Decl. ¶¶ 9-10; Mot., Exhib. E.) Cross-Complainant claims that the attorney’s fees were reasonably incurred in, without limitation, post-judgment collection and enforcement efforts, reviewing the transcript on appeal, reviewing KNB's appellate brief, conducting legal research, drafting Cross-Complainant’s appellate brief, and preparing and participating in oral arguments. In addition, Cross-Complainant states that it anticipates it will incur at least an additional $4,762.50 in preparing and filing this motion, reviewing KNB’s anticipated opposition, preparing a reply, and making oral arguments during the motion. (Hsu Decl. ¶ 11.) The attorney billing rates for the Law Offices of Roger C. Hsu are $450.00 per hour for Roger C. Hsu, $225.00 per hour for Gurgen Sargsyan, and $325.00 per hour for Joseph Liu. Counsel contends that Roger C. Hsu has over 29 years of experience, Joseph M. Liu has over 20 years of experience, and Gurgen Sargsyan has over 2 years of experience.

Counsel provides facts that account for the time by describing the services the firm provided, as discussed above. (Mot., Exhib. E.) The Court notes that Cross-Defendant does not oppose the motion or claim the fees are unreasonable. This is sufficient to support the amount requested of $25,662.50.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Cross-Defendant’s motion and award the requested amount of attorney’s fees in their entirety.