Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV29154, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29154    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 22, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Prejudgment Interest

Moving Party: Plaintiffs James Chen and Eugenia Hsu

Responding Party: Defendants Yi Hu, Quishi Liang, Agape Home Health Serves, Inc.

T/R:      PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST IS GRANTED.

PLAINTIFFS/CROSS-DEFENDANTS 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, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On September 22, 2020, Plaintiffs James Chen and Eugenia Hsu filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Yi Hu and Quishi Liang, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; (3) accounting; (4) constructive trust; and (5) misrepresentation. Plaintiffs sold Agape Home Health Services, Inc. to Defendants in March 2020. Plaintiffs allege that the sale did not include accounts receivable for services performed prior to March 2020. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs for all receivables prior to the sale.

On October 24, 2023, the Court issued its statement of decision following a bench trial. The Court found in favor of Plaintiffs on the causes of action in the second amended complaint. The Court found in favor of Defendants/Cross-Complainants on the cross-complaint's claim for conversion and found in favor of Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants on the remaining claims. The Court awarded Plaintiffs $291,732.85, offset by $44,000 in preclosing accounts payable, and $56,000 in Agape checks that the Court found were wrongfully converted by Plaintiffs, for a net award of $191,732.85.

ANALYSIS

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).)

A. Prevailing Party

Plaintiffs assert they are the prevailing parties because they received the net monetary recovery and prevailed on most claims against Defendants/Cross-Complainants. In opposition, Defendants argue Plaintiffs are not the prevailing party because they recovered less than what was prayed for in the pleadings.

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants the prevailing parties in this action. Plaintiffs received a net monetary recovery and prevailed on a significant majority of claims against Defendants.

B. Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiffs move for $719,402.40 in attorney’s fees and $22,341.31 in remaining costs which were not included in their Memorandum of Costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel Theodora Oringher PC and Practus LLP billed 1,652.01 total hours through January 24, 2024. Counsel’s hourly rates ranged from $250.00 to $800.00 per hour. Defendants assert counsel’s hours are unreasonable and counsel’s hourly rates are excessive. The Court does not take issue with counsel’s hourly rates nor finds counsel’s billing entries excessive. This action lasted approximately four years, required complex discovery and investigation, and culminated in a five-day trial. Counsel’s fees are reasonable. The Court notes that counsel discounted rates and provided certain courtesy discounts.

The Court declines to apportion fees among the various claims. The claims of each side were intertwined, involving a common core of facts.

C. Prejudgment Interest

Plaintiffs move for prejudgment interest against Defendants and Cross Complainants Yi Hu and Qiushi Liang in the amount of $68,761.77 and against Defendant Agape in the amount of $48,131.93. The Court awarded prejudgment interest in its statement of decision. Defendants do not oppose this aspect of the motion.

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants motion for attorney’s fees, costs and prejudgment interest is GRANTED.