Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24STCV04350, Date: 2024-10-21 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.

Case Number: 24STCV04350    Hearing Date: October 21, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:              October 21, 2024

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Esperanza Holdings LLC

Responding Parties:    Defendants T-Five USA dba Benest Flooring and Yong Cheoll Kim

Motion for Attorney Fees

The Court has considered the moving papers.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees in the reduced amount of $10,575.00.

Background

            This case was an unlawful detainer action, where Defendants s T-Five USA, A California corporation dba Benest Flooring and Yong Cheoll Kim (Defendants) possessed the property at issue (the Property). Defendants possessed the Property pursuant to a written lease agreement, which states in pertinent part: “if any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding involving the Premises whether founded in tort, contract or equity, or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party […] in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Such fees may be awarded in the same suit or recovered in a separate suit, whether or not such action or proceeding is pursued to decision or judgment.” (Motion, Exhibit A.)

            On August 30, 2024, this Court entered a final judgement in favor of Plaintiff Esperanza Holdings LLC (Plaintiff) against Defendants.

            On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present motion for an order to collect its attorney fees. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

“[A]s a general rule, attorney fees are not recoverable as costs unless they are authorized by statute or agreement.” (People ex rel. Dept. of Corporations v. Speedee Oil Change Systems, Inc. (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 424, 429.)  

For contracts actions, “where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce the contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code § 1717(a).) “[T]he party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” (Id. § 1717(b)(1).) A successful party means a prevailing party, and [a party] may be considered prevailing parties for attorney’s fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” (Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 173, 178.)

The attorney bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(5).) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) A plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (See Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) “In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 488, quoting Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.)¿¿ 

In determining whether the requested attorney’s fees are “reasonable,” the Court’s “first step involves the lodestar figure—a calculation based on the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the lawyer’s hourly rate. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of facts specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774 [internal citations omitted].) In determining whether to adjust the lodestar figure, the Court may consider the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount of money involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (EnPalm LLC v. Teitler (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774; PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “‘The reasonable market value of the attorney's services is the measure of a reasonable hourly rate. [Citations.] This standard applies regardless of whether the attorneys claiming fees charge nothing for their services, charge at below-market or discounted rates, represent the client on a straight contingent fee basis, or are in-house counsel. [Citations.]’” (Center For Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 619.) 

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney fees of $12,000.00 against Defendants. Because the Court on August 30, 2024 entered final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party. The fees of Plaintiff’s attorneys are broken down as follows:

Reasonableness of Rates

Requested rates are reasonable if they are “within the range of reasonable rates charged by and judicially awarded comparable attorneys for comparable work.” (Children’s Hospital & Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 783.) The Court may consider the sworn declarations of Plaintiff’s attorneys regarding their customary fees, hourly rate determinations in other cases, and the prevailing fees in the community as evidence of the reasonable market rate. (Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.)¿ 

Plaintiff is seeking an award of attorney fees at a rate of $475.00 and $375.00 per hour, depending on the attorney and the experience of that attorney. (Nussbaum Decl., ¶ 4; Stillman Decl., ¶ 3; DeBolt Decl., ¶ 3; Ruttenberg Decl., ¶ 3; Uss Decl., ¶ 3; Zaki Decl., ¶ 3.) The Court finds that these rates are within the reasonable rates by attorneys with similar qualifications and experience for comparable work.

Reasonableness of Hours

            In calculating the lodestar rate, “the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees [Citation], the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied [Citations], and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases. [Citation.]” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437.) 

            Firstly, included in Plaintiff’s calculation of $12,000.00 in attorney fees are fees associated with the filing of the present motion. Specifically, Plaintiff requests one (1) hour in drafting the motion, an anticipated one (1) hour in reviewing and replying to the opposition, and an anticipated three (3) hours traveling to, from, and appearing at, the hearing at $475.00 an hour. (Nussbaum Decl., ¶ 4.) This becomes $2,375.00. The Court declines to award one (1) hour requested for reviewing and replying to the opposition since no opposition was filed. The time travelling to, from, and appearing at, the hearing will be reduced to one (1) hour, given the option of remote appearances. Thus, the total amount of fees requested in association with the filing of this motion will be reduced from $2,375.00 to $950.00. The total amount requested altogether will therefore decrease from $12,000.00 to $10,575.00.

            Lastly, the Court find that the rest of the 23.4 hours requested to be reasonable. The Court finds that the time to review documents, draft the complaint, assess trial documents, prepare for trial, and handle bankruptcy related issues, to be reasonable. The Court also notes that Defendants do not contest the amount Plaintiff requested in attorney fees as no opposition has been filed.

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees in the reduced amount of $10,575.00.

///

///

It is so ordered.

Dated: October 21, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court