Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV32342, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV32342    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 20, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees;

Motion to Tax Costs;

Motion to Determine Entitlement to Prejudgment Interest

T/R:     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED AND REDUCED BY $9,590.00.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS GRANTED IN PART. ITEMS 11, 12, 16b, 16c, 16d-16h, 16i, 16j, 16k ARE TAXED.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IS GRANTED.

            PLAINTIFFS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing

            The Court considers the moving papers, oppositions, and replies.

BACKGROUND

On September 11, 2019, Plaintiffs Carolina Beverage Corporation, Dixie Riverside, Inc. and Alligator Beverage, LLC sued Defendant Fiji Water Company, LLC, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud (concealment and false promise).[1] The action arises out of beverage distribution agreements between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Plaintiffs distributed Defendant’s products to retailers in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia for several years. Defendant then moved to a new distribution model, in which Defendant would distribute its products directly. Plaintiffs allege Defendant breached the distribution agreements by secretly offering lower prices to Plaintiffs’ customers, to persuade them to buy directly from Defendant. Plaintiffs allege Defendants did not disclose their new distribution model to Plaintiffs and instead assured them that it was business as usual.

On April 29, 2022, the jury found in favor of Plaintiffs on the contract causes of action and in favor of Defendant on the tort causes of action. Plaintiffs were awarded $1,993,670.00 damages.

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees

The prevailing party in “any action on a contract” shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to enforce that contract where the contract specifically provides for attorney’s fees.  (Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a).) 

“The verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.”  (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 359, 396.)  If the motion is supported by evidence, the opposing party must respond with specific evidence showing that the fees are unreasonable.  (Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys. v. California Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 550, 560–63.)  The Court has discretion to reduce fees that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.  (Horsford, supra at 395.) 

Plaintiffs move for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,388,902.00. Plaintiffs’ counsel spent almost 7,000 hours prosecuting this action over three years.

In opposition, Defendants take issue with various categories of billings, requesting that the Court reduce fees by almost 70%. For example, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs should not recover time for a mock trial and jury consultation. Defendants also challenge Plaintiffs’ counsel’s time spent on the failed tort causes of action. The Court declines to reduce fees for activities Defendants consider unnecessary. This action was heavily litigated over three years. It included extensive motion practice, discovery, and a jury trial. Counsel’s hours are reasonable.

The Court agrees that Plaintiffs are not entitled to fees incurred solely to prosecute the tort claims. Defendants identify three offending entries totaling $9,590.00. The award of attorney’s fees is reduced by $9,590.00.

B. Motion to Tax Costs

Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.”  (CCP § 1032(b).)  “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.”  (CCP § 1033.5(c)(2).)  “If the items appearing in a cost bill appear to be proper charges, the burden is on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary.”  (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 761, 774.)  “On the other hand, if the items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs.”  (Ibid.)

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of costs seeking reimbursement in the amount of $842,265.97. Defendants move to strike unnecessary costs and unallowable costs. The Court agrees that costs not specifically permitted under CCP § 1033.5 must be stricken. This includes expert fees, jury consultant fees, meal and travel expenses, photocopies, postage, and transcripts.

Plaintiffs assert that many of these costs were necessary for trial. The Court is unpersuaded. Plaintiffs concede that they have included mistaken and unsupported costs in the memorandum of costs, such as $23,168.69 in travel and meals, as well as costs  specifically disallowed by statute, such as $387,993.95 in expert fees. The Court will not parse through these costs to determine if any were necessary given Plaintiffs’ “spaghetti at the wall” approach.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED in part. The following items of the memorandum of costs are taxed in the amount requested by Defendant: Items 11, 12, 16b, 16c, 16d-16h, 16i, 16j, 16k.

C. Motion to Determine Entitlement to Prejudgment Interest

Civ. Code § 3287(a) provides, “[a] person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except when the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt.”

Plaintiffs move for an award of prejudgment interest on the ground that Plaintiffs’ damages were capable of being made certain by calculation. The jury awarded Plaintiffs’ $1,993,670 in termination fees. Both parties’ experts testified that this was exact amount of termination fees allowed by the contract. Defendant does not oppose this motion.

 Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.