Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20GDCV00072, Date: 2023-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00072    Hearing Date: September 20, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 20, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion For Attorney’s Fees;

Motion to Increase Supersedeas Bond;

Motion to Tax Costs

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF $455,053.50.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO INCREASE SUPERSEDEAS BOND IS DENIED AS MOOT.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS GRANTED IN PART. PLAINTIFF’S COSTS ARE TAXED IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,585.00.

PLAINTIFF 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

This is a construction defect case arising out of the construction of condominium complex and its subterranean garage. The owners of adjoining property to the complex, claim that the construction caused substantial subsidence and settlement issues on its property. The action involves several contractors/sub-contractors, complaints and cross-complaints.

ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff’s 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.  (Civ. Code § 1717(a).)

Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees in the amount of $910,107.00, which includes a 2.0 multiplier.

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.) 

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that 919.3 hours at $495.00 per hour were spent prosecuting this action, for a total lodestar of $455,053.50. In opposition, Defendants assert Plaintiff’s counsel should not be compensated for administrative tasks and points out that certain billing entries related to “daily logs” may be fabricated. The Court has reviewed counsel’s hours and finds them reasonable. Counsel may recover time for administrative tasks and the Court is unpersuaded any entries are fabricated.

The Court finds that no mulitplier should be awarded. The Court is permitted, but not required, to apply a multiplier to an award for attorney’s fees. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138.) Relevant factors to determine whether an enhancement is appropriate include (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award. (Id. at 1132.)

Though this action required Plaintiff’s counsel to take on financial risk, the Court finds a 2.0 multiplier inappropriate. The risks involved here do not warrant a multiplier of fees.

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $455,053.50.

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Increase Supersedeas Bond

Plaintiff moves to increase the supersedeas bond posted by Defendants. In opposition, Defendants represent the bond has been increased and the motion is moot.

Plaintiff’s motion to increase supersedeas bond is DENIED as MOOT.

C. Defendants’ 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.)

Defendants move to tax Plaintiff’s costs on the ground they are untimely by 5 days. The Court declines to strike Plaintiff’s costs on this ground and notes that Defendants’ motion is untimely by one day.

Alternatively, Defendants move to strike certain deposition costs and witness fees incurred in the related cases. Plaintiff does not dispute this in opposition. Plaintiff cannot recover costs incurred in other actions.

Defendants’ motion to tax costs is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff’s costs are taxed in the amount of $3,585.00.