Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC07913, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC07913 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: 26
La Mirada Landmark Adult COA v. Swartzbaugh, et al.
ATTORNEY’S
FEES, COSTS AND INTEREST
(Civil
Code §§ 1717, 5975; CRC Rules 3.1700, 3.1702, 8.822)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff La Mirada Landmark Adult Community Association’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES OF
$7,395.75.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff
filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees on September 26, 2023. No
opposition has been filed to date.
Discussion
Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees of $7,395.75 pursuant to Code of Civil section 1032 and
1033.5. A prevailing party is entitled to
recover costs, which can include attorney’s fees, as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subd. (a)(4);
1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) This right may arise out of contract, statute or law.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Additionally, a party prevailing on
an action on a contract is entitled to attorney fees if the contract contains
an attorney’s fees provision. (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).)
It is undisputed that Plaintiff is the
prevailing party in this action, as the party in whose favor judgment was
granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) It is also undisputed that
the parties’ stipulated judgment provided for recovery of attorney’s fees by Plaintiff
upon noticed motion. (Stipulation for Judgment, 08/28/23, p. 2:6-9.)
Plaintiff also points to the charging statute, Civil Code section 5975, which
allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees: “In an action to enforce the
governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.” (Civ. Code, § 5975, subd. (c).) Therefore,
Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
The Court’s objective is to award
attorney fees at the fair market value
based on the particular action. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24
Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “The reasonable
hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000)
22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “‘[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily
begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended
multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . .’” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001)
24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134.) The lodestar method is based on the factors, as
relevant to the particular case: “(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.” (Id. at 1132.) “The ‘‘experienced
trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in
his court, and while his judgment is of course
subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’’” (Id.) A negative modifier was appropriate
when duplicative work had been performed.
(Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)
Plaintiff
submits the declaration of its attorney, Nicholas J. Wolfson (“Wolfson”), in
support of its request for attorney’s fees. Wolfson billed between $360.00 and
$375.00 per hour for approximately 20 hours of work on this action. (Motion,
Wolfson Decl., ¶¶8-9 and Exh. A.) Based on an action for which Plaintiff was
preparing to go to trial but resolved on the trial date, the Court finds the
number of hours billed to be reasonable The billing rate is also commensurate
with the rate charged by other practitioners in the area.
Therefore,
Plaintiff is awarded attorney fees of $7,395.75.
Conclusion
Plaintiff La Mirada Landmark Adult Community Association’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES OF
$7,395.75.
Moving party to give notice.