Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCP02307, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCP02307    Hearing Date: August 30, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 30, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Moving Party: Petitioners Delia Guerrero, Coytl + Macehualli

Responding Party: Respondents/Real Parties in Interest TTLC Los Angeles El Sereno, LLC and The True Life Companies, LLC

T/R:      PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $560,646.25.

PETITIONERS 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.)

Petitioners move for an award of attorney fees per CCP § 1021.5. Petitioners assert that they are the prevailing parties because they successfully challenged the City’s approval of the housing development at issue in this action, requiring the City to prepare a full environmental impact report (EIR) that thoroughly discloses, analyzes, compares and mitigates the Project’s adverse impacts, including those to the Project site’s 102 Southern California Black Walnut trees, to traffic safety in an area with dangerous intersections, nearby schools, and limited access, to air quality impacts resulting from nitrogen oxides emissions, as well as noise, land use, and aesthetics.

Petitioners argue they are entitled to fees under section 1021.5 because the petition has enforced important public rights, in particular the enforcement of CEQA, the case has resulted in a significant benefit to the public by establishing that a legally adequate environmental impact report is required, and the financial burden of private enforcement makes an award of fees appropriate. Additionally, there is no monetary recovery to cover attorney’s fees.

The Court finds no reason to continue this motion until the resolution of the appeal in this case.

The Court finds that Petitioners are the prevailing parties and are entitled to fees under CCP § 1021.5. Petitioners have achieved their main litigation objectives, conferring a significant benefit to the people and ecosystem of El Sereno. Petitioners and Petitioners’ counsel brought this action at financial risk.

B. Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees

Petitioners assert that Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP incurred $399,609.00 in fees to prosecute this action. Petitioners request that the Court apply a 2.0 multiplier, doubling the fees to $774,218.00. Plaintiffs seek $48,908.00 in fees to bring and defend this motion.

1. Multiplier

Petitioners request that the Court apply a 2.0 multiplier to counsel’s fees due to the novelty, difficulty, and skill displayed in the case and the contingent nature of the case. The Court is permitted, but not required, to apply a multiplier to an award for attorneys if, among other factors, the attorneys undertook contingent risk or displayed exceptional skill. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138.) In applying a multiplier for contingent risk, “the trial court should consider whether, and to what extent, the attorney and client have been able to mitigate the risk of nonpayment…” (Id.)

This action required financial risk and conferred benefits on the public. The Court finds that a 1.25 multiplier is appropriate.

2. Lodestar

Petitioners seek $399,609.00 in fees for prosecuting this case. Petitioners’ counsel charges between $180.00 and $760.00 per hour and spent 783.90 hours on this case over approximately two years. Respondents argue that counsel’s fees are unreasonable and inefficient, counsel’s hourly rates are excessive, and fees should be reduced for unsuccessful claims. The Court does not take issue with counsel’s hourly rates. The Court also does not find counsel’s billing entries excessive. This action lasted two years, included motion work and substantial briefing, and resulted in a favorable outcome for Petitioners. Work on the unsuccessful claims was minimal and Petitioners’ application of a 10% billing adjustment adequately addresses that time. The Court finds counsel’s fees reasonable.

Petitioners’ motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $560,646.25.