Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV01115, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01115    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: R

The fee motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action.  In November 2022, plaintiff prevailed in its motion for summary judgment.  Because the lease provided for fees to be awarded to a prevailing party, plaintiff seeks them by way of this motion.

There is no doubt but that plaintiff prevailed, and defendant does not argue to the contrary.  Instead, defendant contends that the $60,433.50 in fees is exorbitant and should therefore be stricken or at least reduced.  Plaintiff attached its billing records to its motion along with a supporting declaration.  The court assumes, but will inquire, that it actually sent out the fees as billed to the client without reduction and that they were paid in full.

The fact that a lawyer bills a client and the bill is paid is some evidence of reasonableness.  (Mai v. HKT Cal, Inc. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 504.)  Further, the court has reviewed the invoices and nothing seemed improperly high or inflated.  The hourly rates are reasonable.

In opposition, defendant contends that the paralegal’s rate is too high and that some work is more administrative than legal.  Defendant also argues generally that the number of hours is just too high.  However, defendant does not point to any specific entry that it claims is improper, which is its burden if it is challenging particular items of work.  (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass’n. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550.)  The court disagrees with defendant’s contention.  Taking a case from complaint through judgment (even summary judgment) for about $60,000 all in does not strike the court as excessive or exorbitant.  And the court disagrees with the defense as to the hourly rates.

The motion is GRANTED as prayed.