Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: LAM17K04324, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: LAM17K04324 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: 26
Maricopa Meadows HOA
v. Nwagbo, et al.
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows
Homeowners Association’s Motion for Award of
Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,567.50 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND $459.93 IN COSTS.
ANALYSIS:
On July 21, 2014, The Justice
Court of the County of Pinal in the State of Arizona entered default judgment
in favor of Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”) and
against Defendants Boniface C. Nwagbo and Jane Doe Nwagbo (“Defendants”) in
Case No. CV2012-0471. The default judgment was entered in the principal sum of
$2,261.10, attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,100.00, and costs in the amount
of $518.49. (Motion, RJN, Exh. 2.) On April 14, 2017, this Court entered
judgment based on the sister-state judgment in Case No. CV2012-0471.
The Court previously granted two
motions for post-judgment attorney fees and costs brought by Plaintiff. (Minute
Orders, 06/11/18 and 03/29/21.)
Plaintiff filed the instant
Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs on November 21, 2022. 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) 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, entitled Maricopa
Meadows Homeowners Association
v. Boniface C. Nwagbo and Jane Doe Aiwagbo with case number CV2012-0471;
and (3) Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment in the
above-entitled action, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number
LAM17K04324.
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 this Court previously found in ruling on the earlier
motions for attorney fees and costs, because
the judgment from the underlying case awarded attorney fees, Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney fees
incurred enforcing its judgment 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 November 18, 2020 and November 7, 2022.
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 Baillio (“Baillio”), in support
of its request for attorney fees. Baillio declares he billed $300.00 per hour
until January 1, 2022, after which his billing rate was $325.00 an hour.
(Motion, Baillio Decl., ¶6.) During that time, Baillio billed $1,950.00 for 5.5
hours of attorney time. (Id. at Exh. A, p. 1.) With respect to the
instant Motion, Baillio spent 1.9 hours for which he charged $617.50. (Id.
at Exh. A, p. 1.) The total amount of attorney fees Plaintiff incurred,
therefore, is $2,567.50. (Ibid.) Based on the above evidence, the court
finds that that the hours spent and rates charged were reasonable. The amount
of time spent on this matter was reasonable for the collection efforts
undertaken, which included calling the sheriff regarding the garnishment
application and instructions, preparing for and participating in the hearing on
the claim of exemption, and drafting this motion for attorney fees. Plaintiff
also incurred $459.93 in costs, mostly from filing and service fees. (Id.
at Exh. A, p. 2.) The Court, accordingly, grants Plaintiff $2,567.50 in
attorney fees and $459.93 in costs.
Conclusion
Plaintiff
Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association’s Motion
for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,567.50 IN ATTORNEY FEES AND $459.93 IN COSTS.
Moving
party to give notice.