Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCP02223, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP02223    Hearing Date: October 30, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 30, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Moving Party: Petitioner Hi Point Neighbors’ Association

Responding Party: Respondent/Real Party in Interest Hi Point M, LLC

T/R:      PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,475.00.

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.

A. Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees

Under CCP § 1021.5, attorneys’ fees may be awarded (1) “to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which” (2) “has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if” (3) “a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons,” (4) “the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement . . . are such as to make the award appropriate, and” (5) “such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.” (CCP § 1021.5.)

Petitioner moves for an award of attorney fees per CCP § 1021.5. Petitioner argues that it is the prevailing party because the action resulted in invalidation of the project approval. Specifically, the Court ordered the City to “set aside its Tower 3 Transit Oriented Communities (“TOC”) approval in City of Los Angeles Planning Department Case No. DRI-2020–2067-TOC.” Petitioner asserts it achieved its objective of upholding the City’s zoning regulations and invalidating the Tier 3 determination and incentives granted to Respondent/Real Party.

Petitioner argues that it is entitled to fees under section 1021.5 because the petition has enforced important public rights, mainly zoning requirements, and has resulted in significant benefit to the public by requiring the City to strictly follow zoning regulations and Measure JJJ, which authorized the City’s Transit Oriented Communities Affordable Housing Incentive Program. Petitioner represents that the action was prosecuted at great financial risk to Petitioner and Petitioners’ counsel. Additionally, there is no monetary recovery to cover attorney’s fees.

The Court finds that Petitioner is the prevailing party in this action and is entitled to fees under CCP § 1021.5. Petitioner has achieved a main litigation objective, conferring a significant benefit on the public. The necessity and financial burden of private enforcement make a fee award appropriate.

B. Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees

Petitioner asserts that Channel Law Group incurred $129,210.00 in fees to prosecute this action. In reply, Petitioner also requests $26,265.00 in fees to bring and defend this motion.

Petitioner’s counsel charges between $150.00 and $675.00 per hour and spent 233.10 hours on this case over approximately two years. Respondent argues that counsel’s fees are unreasonable and inefficient, and fees should be reduced for unsuccessful claims. The Court does not find counsel’s billing entries excessive. This action lasted two years, included motion work, and resulted in a favorable outcome for Petitioners. Work on the unsuccessful claims overlaps with work on the successful claims. The Court finds that counsel’s fees are reasonable.

Petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $155,475. ($129,210.00 + $26,265.00).