Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCP00529, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 21STCP00529    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

EHM Productions, Inc. dba TMZ,

 

 

 

Petitioner,

 

Case No.:

 

 

21STCP00529

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc.,   

 

 

 

Respondent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: February 5, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Moving Party: Petitioner EHM Productions, Inc. dba TMZ

Responding Party: Respondent Starline Tours of Hollywood.

 

T/R:     PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED.

 

PETITIONER 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 October 1, 2021, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award against Respondent.

 

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).)

 

Petitioner moves for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $212,958.00. Petitioner’s counsel represents that 265.9 hours were spent at rates between $292.50 and $1,065.00 per hour.

 

In opposition, Respondent asserts Petitioner cannot recover fees because it has not complied with the Business & Professions Code reporting requirements with respect to its status as a “dba,” and because counsel’s hours and hourly rates are excessive.

 

The Court does not take issue with counsel’s hours or hourly rates. This action entailed motion work and appellate practice. Counsel’s rates are commensurate with their experience and expertise. Counsel’s fees are reasonable.

 

The Court also finds Respondent’s “dba” argument unpersuasive. Petitioner has prosecuted this action under its true name, EHM. Respondent has never challenged the use of TMZ as a “dba” prior to this opposition; nor does Respondent provide authority showing that failure to comply with the Business & Professions Code’s reporting requirements prohibits an award of fees.

 

Petitioner's motion is GRANTED.