Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 21CHCV00239 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00239, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 21CHCV00239 Hearing Date: August 15, 2022 Dept: F47

Dept. F-47

Date: 8/15/22

Case #21CHCV00239

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Motion filed on 3/30/22.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Aerotek, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant JME, Inc. dba TMB

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order awarding post-judgment attorney fees in this action pursuant to CCP 685.040 and CCP 1033.5(a)(10)(A).

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below.

FACTUAL SUMMARY & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a written contract between Plaintiff Aerotek, Inc. (Plaintiff) and Defendant JME, Inc. dba TMB (Defendant) whereby Plaintiff provided Defendant with temporary employment services. (Complaint, Ex.A). On 3/29/21, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Common Counts. Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint. On 5/18/21, default was entered against Defendant. (See 5/18/21 Default). On 5/19/21, default judgment was entered against Defendant which included an award of attorney fees in the amount of $1,039.00. (See 5/19/21 Default Judgment).

On 11/10/21, Defendant filed a motion to vacate and set aside the Default entered against Defendant on 5/18/21 and the Default Judgment entered against Defendant on 5/19/21, the Abstract of Judgment issued on 5/21/21 and Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (Partial Satisfaction) entered on 9/3/21 and granting Defendant leave to file its proposed Answer and related Cross-Complaint. Defendant also sought an award of sanctions/attorney fees against Plaintiff and its counsel under CCP 128.5 in the amount of $15,270.00. On 3/24/22, this Court denied Defendant’s motion.

On 3/30/22, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an order awarding post-judgment attorney fees in this action pursuant to CCP 685.040 and CCP 1033.5(a)(10)(A).

ANALYSIS

CCP 685.040 provides:

The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment. Attorney's fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included in costs collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by law. Attorney's fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney's fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.

CCP 1033.5(a)(10)(A) provides:

(a) The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032:

***

(10) Attorney's fees, when authorized by any of the following:

(A) Contract.

The contract on which this action is based provides:

If the Client’s account, after default, is referred to an attorney or collection agency for collection, Client shall pay all of AEROTEK’s expenses incurred in such collection efforts including, but not limited to, collection agency fees, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Notwithstanding the terms of Section 15.10 of this Agreement AEROTEK may institute proceedings to seek a default judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction in the United States.

(See Complaint, Ex.A, p.1 §7 “COLLECTION”).

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees to enforce the judgment (i.e., including the fees incurred in relation to opposing Defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside and request for sanctions).

While the award of attorney’s fees in the judgment may have been based on the schedule set forth in LASC Local Rule 3.214(a), the Court may otherwise determine the amount of an award of attorney fees. See LASC Local Rule 3.214(a).

In determining a reasonable fee award, the Court begins with the lodestar method of calculation. See Karton (2021) 61 CA5th 734, 744; PLCM Group (2000) 22 C4th 1084, 1095-1096. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel reasonably spent 30 hours in efforts to enforce the judgment and that the $400 per hour requested by Plaintiff’s counsel is reasonable. As such, Plaintiff is awarded $12,000.00 in post-judgment attorney fees pursuant to CCP 685.040 and CCP 1033.5(a)(10)(A).