Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC04605, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC04605, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04605 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: 26

American Contractors Indemnity Company v. Elias Gonzalo Davila

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5, & 1717)

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANT

Plaintiff’s Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party for an Award for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff is deemed the prevailing party and Attorney’s Fees are awarded in the amount of $5,669.80.Background

American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint for breach of contract against Elias Gonzalo Davila (Defendant) on July 11, 2022. The Complaint stemmed from the parties entered into an agreement in which Plaintiff would provide Defendant a license bond in exchange for holding Plaintiff harmless from all loss. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached this agreement causing $15,700.00 in damages.

The motion now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party for an Award for Attorney’s Fees (the Motion). No opposition has been filed; therefore, the Motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Legal Standard

With respect to attorney fees and costs, unless they are specifically provided for by statute (e.g., CCP §§ 1032, et seq.), the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties. (CCP § 1021.) The prevailing party on a contract, which specifically provides for attorney fees and costs incurred to enforce the agreement, is entitled to reasonable attorney fees in addition to other costs. (Civ. Code § 1717(a); CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5(a)(10)(A).) The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine the prevailing party and shall fix, as an element of the costs of suit, the reasonable attorney fees. (Civ. Code § 1717(a), (b).) Any notice of motion to claim attorney fees as an element of costs under shall be served and filed before or at the same time the memorandum of costs is served and filed; if only attorney fees are claimed as costs, the notice of motion shall be served and filed within the time specified in CRC 3.1700 for filing a memorandum of costs. (CRC 3.1702; Gunlock Corp. v. Walk on Water, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1303, fn. 1.)

“It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.) The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily “begins with the ‘lodestar’ [method], i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) “[A] computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.” (Margolin v. Reg’l Planning Comm’n (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.) The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [discussing factors relevant to proper attorneys’ fees award].)

Analysis

Plaintiff contends in their moving papers, that the contract on which they sued provided for attorney fees. That provision is reproduced here:

“In the event of any litigation arising out of or relating to this agreement, Surety shall be entitled to recover its attorney’s fees incurred therein.”

(Complaint, Exh. A.)

On January 8, 2024, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff for the principal sum requested in the Complaint of $15,700.00 plus accrued interest in the amount of $8,372.60. Here, Plaintiff is the prevailing party.

Next, Plaintiff provides the Declaration of Michael K. Murray (Murray Decl.) which states that the attorney’s billing rates on this matter ranged from $300.00-$375.00 per hour for a partner with fourteen years of experience and $275.00-$325.00 per hour for an associate with seven year of experience. (Murray Decl., ¶ 12.) Considering the nature of the case, the questions involved, and the skill required, this appears to be fair market value for legal services. (See Melnyk, supra, at 623-624 and Serrano, supra, at 49.) The total fees for the matter amount to $5,294.80. Plaintiff additionally requests that the Court award the anticipated 5 hours of time at $375 per hour for the instant Motion, including any opposition and reply that need be drafted. However, no opposition nor reply was filed here. Therefore, considering that only the moving papers were filed, the Court will award $375 in addition to the requested amount.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party for an Award for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff is deemed the prevailing party and Attorney’s Fees are awarded in the amount of $5,669.80.

Moving party to give notice.