Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 21SMCV01020, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV01020    Hearing Date: March 22, 2023    Dept: R

This is a fee motion.  Defendant prevailed on summary judgment shortly before the trial.  The contract that was at the heart of the case contained an attorneys’ fees clause and there is no dispute over the prevailing party question.

The court starts by noting that it has some sympathy for plaintiff, who is an elderly person attempting to undo the sale of her longtime home.  However, she had no legal basis to undo the sale and the court must believe that her counsel fully and clearly told her that should she not prevail she would be liable for defendant’s attorneys’ fees.  Having signed the contract giving fees to the prevailing party and having been (presumably) fully informed of the risks, the court cannot relieve her of the consequences under the law.

Plaintiff questions the reasonableness of the fee requested and also requests a 50% fee reduction.

The court has reviewed the hourly rates.  The court believes that the rates are reasonable given the Los Angeles legal community.  The court will, therefore, approve the rates.  One might argue that this was not an unduly complicated case and that defendant could have retained less experienced attorneys to have achieved the same result.  But the court is not generally willing to second-guess a party’s choice of counsel, and here, the sale had already been completed when the suit was brought.  The court further does not believe that a 50% reduction, or any across-the-board reduction, is appropriate here.  While the case was resolved on summary judgment, that order came very close to trial and plaintiff diligently prosecuted her case.  Defendant could do no less and it would have been foolhardy for the defense to presume that summary judgment would be granted and therefore to have put off trial preparation. 

The court does agree that pre-litigation mediation fees are not recoverable.  Any such fees will not be allowed.  The court also agrees that appellate work cannot be recovered in this fee motion.  This motion goes to trial fees, not anticipatory appellate fees.

Contemporaneous billing statements were submitted.  However, they were redacted and there was no detailed declaration setting forth the work done.  While billing records are not required to obtain fees, where that is the only evidence of work done (as is the case here) they must be detailed enough for the court to ascertain what was done and the reasonableness of the time spent.  Where there are redacted entries that eliminate the substance or specifics of the work performed, the court will allow for no more than .5 hours for any given entry.  Beyond that .5 hours, the records are too opaque for the court to know if the time is reasonable or not.

Other than as set forth above, it is hard for the court to second-guess counsel.  Absent entries that appear improper on their face, the evidence is that the time was actually spent doing the work.  The court is not in a position to say that the amount of time preparing for plaintiff’s deposition, for example, was unduly high.  To say that, the court would need to know what records there were and how difficult the deposition was.  The court notes that in this case, one plank of defendant’s case was that the suit was really a case of seller’s remorse because plaintiff was unhappy in the new dwelling she purchased.  While that ultimately did not carry the day (because summary judgment was granted on other grounds), the court cannot discount the fees needed to obtain evidence to support that theory and that took time and effort.

The court will, however, inquire whether the bills set forth in the billing statement were actually billed in full to the client and paid in full without any ability to recover any amount from counsel under any circumstances.  If they were, that is some evidence that they are reasonable, as clients are generally not in the habit of paying unreasonable bills.  Assuming that the answer is in the affirmative, then the motion is GRANTED with the modifications set forth above.  The question, to be clear, is not whether defendants are obligated to pay the bill or will in the future pay it.  It is whether all of the amounts set forth in the bills have actually been sent to the client without deduction or offset and paid in full as of today.  If the answer to the question is in the negative, the court will need to consider the amount that has not been paid and whether the bills ought to be reduced by a like amount.

As to the amounts sought in reply, the court is inclined to give plaintiff the opportunity to respond, but plaintiff should be aware that “fees on fees” are typically awarded and given the relatively modest amount requested in reply, it might be that she is far better off simply conceding them.

Defendant is to submit a revised order consistent with the foregoing.