Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STCP02989, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP02989    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: 26

Maricopa Meadows HOA v. Brown, et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(CCP § 685.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,622.50 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND $772.69 IN COSTS.

ANALYSIS:

On August 9, 2022, this Court entered as judgment a sister-state judgment from the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona in favor of Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Defendants / Judgment Debtors Stephen S. Brown and Jane Doe Brown (“Judgment Debtors”). Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (“the Motion”) on April 2, 2024. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Request for Judicial Notice

The motion is accompanied by a request for judicial notice of the (1) the Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Maricopa Meadows recorded in the Pinal County, Arizona Recorder's Office on March 19, 2004 as Instrument No. 2004-019765; (2) Judgment

entered in the Maricopa Justice Court, County of Pinal, State of Arizona on November 6, 2013, entitled Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association v. Stephen S. Brown and Jane Doe Brown with case number CV2012-0564; and (3) Judgment on Sister-State Judgment entered in the above-entitled action, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 22STCP02982.

The request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (c) and (d).

Entitlement to Attorney Fees and Costs

“The judgment creditor may claim under this section the following costs of enforcing a judgment: . . . (6) Attorney's fees, if allowed by Section 685.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure, section 685.040 states: “The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included in costs collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by law. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.” Also, the motion must be brought with two years of the incurred costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080, subd. (a).)

Based on the award of attorney’s fees in the judgment from the sister-state case, Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees incurred enforcing its judgment here pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040. (Motion, RJN, Exh. 2, p. 2.) The Motion is timely filed with respect to fees incurred between June 8, 2022 and April 2, 2024. (Motion, Bailio Decl., ¶¶6-11 and Exh. A.)

Calculation of Attorney Fees and Costs

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, Austin Bailio (“Bailio”), in support of its request for attorney fees. Bailio declares that he billed $325.00 until December 31, 2022, then billed $375.00 per hour. (Motion, Bailio Decl., ¶6 and Exh. A.) During that time, Bailio spent 4.2 hours for which they billed $2,535.00, as well as two flat rate fees of $450.00 for the writ of execution and withholding order. (Id. at ¶¶6-11 and Exh.) Judgment Creditor also incurred paralegal fees of $87.50 based on $175.00 per hour. (Id. at ¶10.) The total amount of attorney’s fees Plaintiff incurred, therefore, is $2,622.50. (Id. at ¶12 and Exh. A.)

Plaintiff also presents evidence it incurred costs from investigation, filing fees, appearance fees, and other costs in the amount of $772.69. (Id. at Exh. A, p. 2.)

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,622.50 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND $772.69 IN COSTS.

Moving party to give notice.