Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV00844, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00844, Date: 2023-08-31 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: 23CHCV00844 Hearing Date: August 31, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/31/23

Case #23CHCV00844

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Motion filed on 7/10/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rediger Investment Mortgage Fund

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Jade Collective

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order: (1) fixing and awarding Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees as costs of at least $40,698.53 pursuant to the Lease, Civil Code 1717(a) and (b) and other applicable statutory and case law and (2) awarding Plaintiff its costs in the amount of $1,609.95 pursuant to Plaintiff’s previously filed Memorandum of Costs.

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Defendant Jade Collective’s (Defendant) default under a commercial lease agreement with Plaintiff Rediger Investment Mortgage Fund’s (Plaintiff) predecessor-in-interest. On 3/23/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for unlawful detainer. On 5/16/23, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. On 5/18/23, Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed and served on Defendant. On 5/31/23, Plaintiff filed and served its Memorandum of Costs.

On 7/10/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order: (1) fixing and awarding Plaintiff its attorneys’ fees as costs of at least $40,698.53 pursuant to the Lease, Civil Code 1717(a) and (b) and other applicable statutory and case law and (2) awarding Plaintiff its costs in the amount of $1,609.95 pursuant to Plaintiff’s previously filed Memorandum of Costs. Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

As the prevailing party in this action, Plaintiff is entitled to recover its costs. (See 5/16/23 Judgment); CCP 1032(a)(4), (b). Pursuant to the lease/contract which underlies this action, as the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred to enforce the contract as part of its costs. (See P. McGarrigle Decl., Ex.A, p.4 “Defaults,” p.7 “Binding Effect”); Civil Code 1717(a), (b); CCP 1033.5(a)(10).

An award of attorneys’ fees under Civil Code 1717 is governed by equitable principles; therefore, “the trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a reasonable fee.” PLCM Group, Inc. (2000) 22 C4th 1084, 1095. Once a party claiming attorneys’ fees presents evidence supporting the claimed amount, the burden shifts to the party opposing the award of such fees to present equally specific countervailing evidence. Gates (9^th Cir. 1993) 987 F2d 1392, 1405. If the opposing party does not submit evidence to contradict the evidence submitted by the moving party, the fees sought by the moving party are presumed reasonable. United Steelworkers (9^th Cir. 1990) 896 F2d 403, 407.

Based on the lodestar method of calculation (reasonable number of hours spent multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate) and the evidence Plaintiff submitted in support of the hourly rates charged and the amount of time spent prosecuting this case, the Court finds that the $40,698.53 in attorneys’ fees requested to be reasonable. See PLCM Group, supra at 1095.

Plaintiff has presented evidence that its attorneys’ spent 90.4 hours prosecting this case, including in relation to this motion at the average hourly rate of $450.20. (See P. McGarrigle Decl. ¶¶6-7, Ex.D-E). Defendant has not presented any counter evidence to refute the foregoing.

Since Defendant failed to challenge the costs claimed in Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs filed on 5/31/23, Plaintiff is also entitled to recover its costs of $1,609.95. See CRC 3.1700(b).

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.