Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC00672, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00672, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00672 Hearing Date: November 14, 2023 Dept: 26

Urbina v. M&N Financing Corp., et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5; Civil Code § 1717)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Therefore, Plaintiff Daniel E. Urbina’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,927.50.

ANALYSIS:

On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff Daniel E. Urbina (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Business Act, and Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97 and 1281.99 against Defendant M&N Financing Corporation (“Defendant”). Following Defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading, the Court entered its default. Default judgment was entered against Defendant on July 13, 2023. On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which states in relevant part: “The court shall award court costs and attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this section.” (Civ. Code, § 1780, subd. (e).) It is undisputed that Plaintiff is the prevailing party on the Complaint, as the party in whose favor judgment was entered. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1780.

A motion for attorney’s fees must be filed and served with the time for filing a notice of appeal under Cal. Rules of Court Rule 8.822. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1702(a).) Cal. Rules of Court Rule 8.822 states that an attorneys’ fees motion must be filed within either (1) 30 days after the party filing the motion is served with a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment; or (2) 90 days after entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court 8.822(a)(1).) Here, judgment was entered on July 13, 2023 but no notice of entry of judgment was served. The instant Motion was timely filed within 90 days of the entry of judgment on July 13, 2023.

Calculation of Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff asks for attorney’s fees of $22,547.25 based on time spent by two attorneys and one paralegal on this action. (Motion, Sadr Decl., ¶¶3-11 and Exh. 1.) 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.) “‘[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 reasonable hourly rate is defined as “the prevailing rate in the community for comparable professional legal services.” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 156.)

The burden is on the successful party to prove the appropriate market rate to be used in calculating the lodestar. (Blum v. Stenson (1984) 465 U.S. 886, 895 fn. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891.) However, the moving party may satisfy its burden through its own affidavits, without additional evidence. (Davis v. City of San Diego (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 893, 903, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 266.) Moreover, in assessing a reasonable hourly rate, the trial court is allowed to consider the attorney’s skill as reflected in the quality of the work, as well as the attorney’s reputation and status.

(MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Gorman (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 13.) Plaintiff contends that it is appropriate for Attorney Kasra Sadr (“Attorney Sadr”) to bill at $650.00 per hour, which is a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney practicing for 25 years and that this rate is in line with the Laffey Matrix. (Motion, Sadr Decl., ¶8.) Similarly, Plaintiff contends that $375.00 per hour is reasonable for an associate, Nima Heydari, with nine years of experience. (Id. at ¶10.) The number of years of experience of these attorneys, while the starting point, is not the only consideration for a reasonable hourly rate.

“In making its calculation [of a reasonable hourly rate], the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees [citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied [citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (569 East, supra, 6 Cal.App.5th at p. 437, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 304; see Mountjoy, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 272, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 495 [“ ‘ “a reasonable hourly rate is the product of a multiplicity of factors .... [including] the level of skill necessary, time limitations, the amount to be obtained in the litigation, the attorney’s reputation, and the undesirability of the case” ’ ”].)

(Morris v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 41.) These other factors recommend a lower hourly rate. This consumer case was neither difficult nor complex, as evidenced by the lack of any defense. Indeed, the case proceeded directly to default and default judgment. Nor are these types of consumer cases “undesirable” given their prevalence in this court. Finally, the Laffey Matrix does not offer information on the prevailing fees in this community for these types of cases. Based on these considerations, the Court reduces the hourly rate in this action to $400.00 for Attorney Sadr and to $300.00 for Attorney Heydari. The paralegal rate is reduced for the same reasons to $100.00 per hour.

Regarding the number of hours billed, the Court finds that unnecessary time was spent due to two experienced attorneys working on this action. For example, both attorneys separately spoke to the client, separately reviewed the client’s documents, and separately prepared statements of claims. (Motion, Sadr Decl., Exh. 1.) Attorney Sadr’s time for these tasks is reduced from 2.2 hours to one hour; Attorney Heydari’s time is reduced from 2.4 hours to 1.5 hours. The time spent by Attorney Sadr to prepare the default and default packet was also excessive given the straightforward nature of this action. That time is reduced from 8.1 hours to five hours.

Based on the foregoing, Attorney’s Sadr’s work is awarded $5,480.00 and Attorney Heydari’s work is awarded $1,537.50. Finally, the work of paralegal Liz Peralta is awarded $910.00, for a total attorney’s fees award of $7,927.50.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Daniel E. Urbina’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,927.50.

Moving party to give notice.