Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00417, Date: 2022-09-13 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: 21CHCV00417    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/13/22

Case #21CHCV00417

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Motion filed on 5/2/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants The Congregational Church of Chatsworth, Ana Cardenas, JoEllen Murata and Hector Rameriz

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Southern California Nevada Conference United Church of Christ and The Congregational Church of Chatsworth

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order awarding Defendants attorneys’ fees.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below. 

Defendant The Congregational Church of Chatsworth (Defendant Church) is a non-profit corporation.  In this action, a subchapter of the Defendant Church’s parent denomination, Plaintiff Southern California Nevada Conference United Church of Christ (Conference) along with Plaintiff The Congregational Church of Chatsworth (Plaintiff Church) (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued the Defendant Church and certain of its officers, Defendants Ana Mercedes Cardena, JoEllen Murata and Hector Rameriz (collectively, Defendants), in an effort to gain title to the Defendant Church’s real property.

On 2/9/22, this Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.  On 2/28/22, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendants.  On 3/1/22, Defendants served Notice of Entry of Judgment.  On 3/9/22, Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Judgment and submitted a proposed Amended Judgment which was rejected by the Court on 3/22/22.  Thereafter, on 5/2/22, Defendants filed and served the instant motion seeking an order awarding them attorneys’ fees in the amount of $100,426.00 for fees incurred up to the filing of the instant motion and for an additional $19,950.00 for fees incurred and anticipated to be incurred in relation to the instant motion for attorneys’ fees.  Plaintiffs have opposed the motion only as to the amount of fees requested.  Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the motion to be timely.  CRC 3.1702; CRC 8.104.    

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is granted.

Plaintiffs’ objection to Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit 1, is overruled.

Plaintiffs’ objection (number 1) to part of the declaration of JoEllen Murata is overruled.  

As noted above, for purposes of this motion, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendants are the prevailing party or that the subject settlement agreement contained an attorneys’ fee clause which would entitle Defendants to recover their reasonable attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party in this action.  (See Opposition, p.2:4-7); CCP 1033.5(a)(10)(A); CC 1717 ; (Murata Decl., Ex.A ¶14).

In determining the amount of a reasonable attorney fee award, the Court’s inquiry begins with the “lodestar”—the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.  PLCM Group, Inc. (2000) 22 C4th 1084, 1095.  The reasonable hourly rate is based on that prevailing in the community for similar work.  Id.  The lodestar figure may then be adjusted based on the specifics of each case to fix the fee award at the fair market value for the services provided.   Id.  The amount awarded for attorneys’ fees is within the sound discretion of the trial court.  Peak-Las Positas Partners (2009) 172 CA4th 101, 114. 

Contrary to the assertion in the opposition, the Court finds that defense counsel was required to spend time researching and opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration as Plaintiffs did not take the motion off calendar until 6/29/22 which was after Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on 6/22/22 and only two court days before the 7/6/22 hearing on the motion.  Additionally, the Court finds that the $350-$375 hourly fee charged by defense attorney Marcus Larson and the $265-$285 hourly fee charged by defense attorney Jonathan Velasquez to be reasonable as is the $185-$195 hourly fee charged for the services of paralegal Laura Thomas.   However, the Court finds the 352 hours purportedly spent on the defense of this matter to be excessive. 

The Court finds that 65 hours at the hourly rate of $375 and 50 hours at the hourly rate of $350 were reasonably spent by attorney Larson on the defense of this matter.  ($41,875).

The Court finds that 40 hours at the hourly rate of $285 and 30 hours at the hourly rate of $265 were reasonably spent by attorney Velasquez on the defense of this matter.  ($19,350)

The Court finds that 3 hours were reasonably spent at the hourly rate of $195 by paralegal Thomas  on the defense of this matter.  ($585) 

The Court further finds that a total of 16 hours at the hourly rate of $375 was/will be reasonably spent on the preparation of the instant motion, review of the opposition, preparation of the reply and appearance at the hearing. ($6,000)

Therefore, based on the lodestar method of calculation, Defendants are awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $67,810.00.