Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV01848, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01848    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: I

This is an unopposed fee motion, and it is GRANTED.

This motion has been here before.  On January 23, 2024, the court continued the motion for further briefing on the rates plaintiffs’ counsel charged in this commercial UD action and also for evidence that the invoices were actually billed and paid in the amounts stated.  Plaintiff filed supplemental papers on February 14, 2024.

This is a contract case in which plaintiff prevailed.  The contract has an attorneys’ fee provision, giving the prevailing party the right to recover fees.  Civil Code section 1717 provides that such a term will be enforced by the courts.  Where a party does not prevail in full, the court has some significant discretion in awarding fees—both whether to award them and the amount.  But where a party prevails in full, the court has no discretion but rather must award fees to the extent they are reasonable and necessary.  Courts use a “lodestar” methodology to determine base line fees.  That is, courts determine a reasonable hourly rate and then multiply that by the number of hours spent.  That figure can be adjusted up or down in an appropriate case based on various factors.  (Hill v. Affirmed Housing Group (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1192.)  Plaintiffs here seek $145,696 in fees.  Plaintiff prevailed in full by way of summary judgment.  The supplemental briefing demonstrates that the fees requested are appropriate.  The hourly rate is reasonable given the circumstances, and having reviewed the bills, the court believes that the number of hours billed were reasonable as well.  Further, it appears that the bills were paid, and that is some evidence that the bills are reasonable.  (Jones v. Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258.)  The motion is therefore GRANTED in the amount requested.