Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00790, Date: 2024-09-11 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: 21CHCV00790    Hearing Date: September 11, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/11/24

Case #21CHCV00790

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES ON APPEAL

Motion filed on 1/16/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff KB Salt Lake III, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Fitness International, LLC

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order awarding Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses on appeal in the amount of $278,535.00, which includes the fees for the instant motion. 

RULING: The motion is granted. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This commercial unlawful detainer action arose from Defendant Fitness International, LLC’s (Defendant) failure to pay rent to Plaintiff KB Salt Lake III, LLC (Plaintiff) from April 2020 through April 2022.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff owned the property located at 9119 De Soto Avenue, Chatsworth, California, 91311.  Defendant entered into a lease with Plaintiff to build and operate a new fitness center on the premises commencing on 11/28/16 and expiring on 12/31/27.  When the COVID-19 pandemic struck shortly after Defendant had demolished Plaintiff’s property to begin construction of a new gym, Defendant declared it was excused from paying rent and constructing a gym facility on and refused to give up legal possession and control of Plaintiff’s property. 

On 10/7/21, Plaintiff filed this action for unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent.  Plaintiff prevailed on summary judgment.  On 4/18/22, this Court entered judgment for restitution of the premises and possession, forfeiture of the lease and for $368,389.75 in past rent and rental damages.  On 10/10/22, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees incurred through judgment based on an attorney fee provision in the lease. 

Defendant appealed the judgment.  After the filing of Defendant’s opening brief, Plaintiff’s response brief and Defendant’s reply, on 9/11/23, the Court of Appeal held oral argument.  On 9/26/23, the Court of Appeal issued a 41-page published opinion affirming the judgment and rejecting all of Defendant’s arguments.  On 12/8/23, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur indicating that Plaintiff is to recover its costs on appeal.    

On 1/16/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order awarding Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees and expenses on appeal in the amount of $278,535.00, which includes the fees for the instant motion.  On 8/26/24, Defendant filed and served a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion. 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is granted.    

In ruling on the prior motion for attorneys’ fees incurred through judgment, this Court  determined that Plaintiff is the prevailing party entitled to recover attorneys’ fees based on the contract between the parties.  (See 10/10/22 Minute Order).  The law also provides this Court with authority to award Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party on the appeal.    See Butler-Rupp (2007) 154 CA4th 918, 924; Harbour Landing-Dolfann (1996) 48 CA4th 260, 264-265. 

The trial court has the discretion to determine a reasonable fee award after consideration of several factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.  Cruz (2007) 155 CA4th 1270, 1274-1275.  In determining a fee award, the trial court usually begins with the lodestar method of calculation (the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate).  PLCM Group, Inc. (2000) 22 C4th 1084, 1095-1097. 

The Court finds that the $278,535.00 in attorneys’ fees requested by Plaintiff is reasonable based on the lodestar method of calculation.  (See Lombardi Decl. ¶¶4-42).  Plaintiff’s attorneys spent more than 400 hours opposing the appeal at hourly rates ranging from $620/hour to $650/hour.  Id.  Additionally, the Court notes that the appeal involved novel and complex issues dealing with COVID-related closure orders.  Further, Plaintiff’s counsel achieved an excellent result by prevailing on all issues.

Finally, the reasonableness of the fee request is supported by Defendant’s non-opposition to the motion.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.