Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV04555, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04555    Hearing Date: December 5, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 5, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Moving Party: Defendant International Capital Alliance, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Hakan Serbest

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT 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

Plaintiff Hakan Serbest first sued Defendant International Capital Alliance Inc. (ICA) on February 7, 2022. The operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on October 25, 2023. It contains causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) unfair business practices; and (6) recission. The action arises from a purported joint venture agreement between the parties.

Following a bench trial, the Court ruled in favor of Defendant, finding the joint venture agreement unenforceable.

ANALYSIS

A. Entitlement to 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).)

Defendant moves for attorney’s fees under Civ. Code § 1717 via the joint venture agreement. 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).) The joint venture agreement provides, “[t]he prevailing Party shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in conforming and executing upon the award.”   

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant cannot recover fees under the joint venture agreement because Defendant argued, and the Court found, that the agreement was an enforceable, sham agreement. The primary purpose of section 1717 is to ensure mutuality of remedy for attorney fee claims under contractual attorney fee provisions. (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 610.) “To ensure mutuality of remedy in this situation, it has been consistently held that when a party litigant prevails in an action on a contract by establishing that the contract is invalid, inapplicable, unenforceable, or nonexistent, section 1717 permits that party's recovery of attorney fees whenever the opposing parties would have been entitled to attorney fees under the contract had they prevailed.” (Id. at 611.)

As Plaintiff would have been entitled to fees had Plaintiff prevailed, Defendant is entitled to fees.

B. Reasonableness of Fees

Defendant moves for $78,015.00 in attorney’s fees and $3,499.23 in costs. Defendant’s counsel, Zhong Lun Law Firm, LLP, billed 148 hours at $525.00 per hour. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts counsel’s hours are excessive. This action lasted two years and included motion work, discovery, and a bench trial. Counsel’s hours and hourly rates are reasonable.

The motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED.