Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV00065, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00065    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: R

The motion for fees is GRANTED IN FULL. 

This was an action to enforce a contractual guarantee.  Plaintiff prevailed on summary judgment.  The guarantee contract had a fee provision.  Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff is entitled to fees or even the number of hours worked.  Defendant’s contention is that this was a simple collections case and an attorney right out of law school should have been assigned to it at a much lower billing rate—less than half of the rate actually charged.

Had this been such a case, the court might have agreed.  But defendant here raised a number of issues in defense, including the effect of a PPP loan, force majeure, and related items.  That took this case out of the cookie-cutter category and into one where a more experienced attorney is appropriate.  Counsel here seeks $450/hour, which the court believes is reasonable given the defense here.  The total fees sought all-in are $28,755, which the court also finds to be reasonable.

The court will, however, make one inquiry.  The court does not know whether plaintiff’s counsel was billing by the hour or was on some other kind of fee arrangement.  If the former, the court will ask whether the fees requested were actually billed and paid without discount.  If so, that is evidence of reasonableness.  If, however, they were discounted, then it would seem to the court that the request should be discounted as well.