Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: LAM16K10151, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM16K10151, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM16K10151 Hearing Date: November 20, 2023 Dept: 26

Greenway Parc at Surprise One COA v. Telles, et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

(CCP § 685.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Greenway Parc at Surprise One Community Association’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,535.00 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES AND $167.19 IN COSTS.

ANALYSIS:

On April 14, 2014, the Hassayampa Justice Court, County of Maricopa in the State of Arizona, entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Greenway Parc at Surprise One Community Association (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendants Elvira Telles and John Doe Telles (“Defendants”) in Greenway Parc at Surprise One Community Association v. Elvira Telles and John Doe Telles, Case No. CC2013-187257. The default judgment was entered in the principal sum of $3,363.36, attorney’s fees of $1,330.00, and costs of $292.72. (Motion, RJN, Exh. 2.) On September 13, 2016, this Court entered judgment based on the sister-state judgment in Case No. CC2013-187257.

On October 12, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s first Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (Minute Order, 10/12/17.) On April 8, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (Minute Order, 04/08/21.) On April 7, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s third Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (Minute Order, 04/07/22.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (“the Motion”) on August 28, 2023. 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) Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Kaufman and Broad at Greenway Parc at Surprise One recorded in the Maricopa County, Arizona Recorder's Office on August 11, 1999 as Instrument No. 99-0761072; (2) Judgment entered in the Hassayampa Justice Court, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, entitled Greenway Parc at Surprise One Community Association v. Elvira Telles and John Doe Telles, Case No. CC2013-187257; and (3) Judgment on Sister-State Judgment entered in the above-entitled action, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number LAM16K10151.

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).)

As the Court previously found on the first three Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees incurred enforcing its judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 based on the award of attorney’s fees in the underlying sister-state judgment. (Motion, RJN, Exh. 2.) The Motion is timely filed with respect to fees incurred between December 30, 2021 and August 23, 2023. (Motion, Bailio Decl., ¶7.)

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’s fees. Baillio billed at $300.00 to $375.00 per hour. (Motion, Bailio Decl., ¶6.) Baillio billed 1.1 hours during the relevant time period and charged two flat rate fees of $275.00 for drafting notices of satisfaction. (Id. at ¶¶6-10 and Exh. A.) Additionally, the paralegals billed 1.5 hours at $125.00 per hour. (Id. at ¶¶11-13 and Exh. A.) Finally, Bailio billed 1.9 hours for the instant Motion. (Id. at ¶14 and Exh. A.)

While the Court finds the rates charged reasonable, the number of attorney’s fees should be reduced.

First, attorney time already accounted for with respect to the third Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the prior motion is again included in this Motion in the amount of 0.2 hours. (Id. at Exh. A.) Also, time spent on the instant Motion should be reduced in light of Plaintiff’s three earlier, nearly identical, Motions. The hours billed are reasonably reduced by one hour of attorney time. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees is reduced by $435.00, to $1,535.00.

Plaintiff also incurred costs from investigation, filing, appearance fees and other costs, in the amount of $439.08. (Id. at Exh. A.) The Court finds the costs should be reduced under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 for costs not allowed and pursuant to the Court’s discretion under subdivision (c)(4). The costs for postage, background investigation, annual electronic service fee, and file management software provider charge, are denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for costs is reduced by $271.89 to $167.19. (Id. at Exh. A, p. 2.)

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Greenway Parc at Surprise One Community Association’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,535.00 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES AND $167.19 IN COSTS.

Moving party to give notice.