Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20SMCV01482, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV01482    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

            This case arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant CA-Colorado (“Plaintiff”) contends the parties settled their dispute and entered into a confidential settlement agreement on August 16, 2022.  (Motion at p. 3:22-23; Ex. A to Hutter Decl.)  Plaintiff now seeks an order enforcing that settlement agreement.

            Defendant and Cross-Complainant Bird Rides (“Defendant”) opposes the motion and Plaintiff replies.            

LEGAL STANDARD

(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1)   The party.

(2)   An attorney who represents the party.

(3)   If the party is an insurer, an agent who is authorized in writing by the insurer to sign on the insurer's behalf.

(c) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (b) do not apply in a civil harassment action, an action brought pursuant to the Family Code, an action brought pursuant to the Probate Code, or a matter that is being adjudicated in a juvenile court or a dependency court.

(d) In addition to any available civil remedies, an attorney who signs a writing on behalf of a party pursuant to subdivision (b) without the party's express authorization shall, absent good cause, be subject to professional discipline.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6, subds. (a)-(d).)

ANALYSIS

The issue on a motion to enforce settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement. (See Viejo v. Bancorp. (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 209, fn. 4 [“a court's power to make factual determinations under section 664.6 is generally limited to whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement agreement”].)    

Plaintiff has attached as Exhibit A to the Hutter Declaration a copy of the August 16, 2022 settlement agreement, signed by both parties.  Bird does not challenge the existence of a settlement agreement or the validity of the agreement Plaintiff attached to its motion.  Rather, in opposition, Bird argues (1) CA-Colorado violated the Court’s September 12, 2023 Order instructing CA-Colorado to “re-file and serve” the Motion to Enforce Settlement by adding the additional attorneys’ fees incurred with altering the redactions and re-filing the motion in accordance with that Order; (2) CA-Colorado served the unredacted version of the Motion papers on Bird a day late; and (3) CA-Colorado’s requested attorneys’ fees are unreasonable.

1.      Additional Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiff filed a previous version of the motion to enforce settlement with a concurrent motion to file under seal.  The Court determined that it was inappropriate to redact the boilerplate terms of the confidential settlement agreement, and ordered Plaintiff to re-file the motion to enforce settlement and attendant papers, redacting only the key financial terms of the settlement in Section 1 of the agreement.  (September 12, 2023 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff has now re-filed the motion to enforce settlement, redacting only the key financial terms (and references thereto), but increasing the amount of attorneys’ fees sought, to account for the time spent reviewing the opposition, drafting the reply, attending the prior hearing, revising the redactions, and re-filing the motion.

The Court will not disregard Plaintiff’s new motion because it differs from the originally-filed motion in that the amount of attorneys’ fees have increased to account for the additional time spent attending to revising the motion to enforce.  Plaintiff is entitled to its fees reasonably incurred in adjusting the redactions and refiling the motion pursuant to Section 15 of the settlement agreement, which provides for payment of attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with any action to obtain relief for a breach of the agreement. 

Therefore, the Court will not disregard the motion because the amount of the fee request has been updated.

2.      Late Service

Defendant argues that the Court should disregard Plaintiff’s motion because the Court ordered Plaintiff to file and serve the newly-redacted papers no later than September 19, 2023, and Plaintiff served Defendant with redacted copies on September 19, but did not serve Defendant unredacted copies until September 20.

The Court has discretion whether to consider late-filed papers.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)  Defendant does not contend that they have been prejudiced by the late service of unredacted papers.  Defendant was previously served unredacted copies of a nearly identical motion, the only difference being the amount of attorneys’ fees requested, which is in the unredacted portion of the Hutter Declaration.  Plus, Defendants have an unredacted copy of the underlying settlement agreement. 

Therefore, the Court will not disregard Plaintiff’s motion because unredacted copies of the re-filed motion were served on Defendant a day late.

3.      Reasonableness of Attorneys’ Fees

Defendants next argue that Plaintiff’s attorney fee request is unreasonable because (1) the time spent in connection with the motion (51 hours) is unreasonable; (2) the hourly rates are unreasonable.  Specifically, Defendant takes issue with such senior attorneys spending so much time on a motion, where much of the work (such as the redactions) could have been done by junior attorneys or legal support staff.  Therefore, Defendant requests that the attorneys’ fee award be reduced from the requested $32k+ down to $2,500.

The Court disagrees that the already-discounted rates are unreasonable, but agrees that 51 hours is excessive.  Specifically, in connection with the previously-filed motion, Plaintiff originally sought $20,108.10 in attorneys’ fees for time corresponding with opposing counsel, researching and drafting the motion to enforce, and gathering and redacting all related exhibits, representing 5.7 hours of Timothy Hutter’s time at a discounted rate of $706 and 25.9 hours of Joseph L. McGready’s time at a discounted rate of $621.  Plaintiff also originally requested $3,896 in fees for estimated time spent drafting the reply brief and appearing for and attending the hearing.

Plaintiff now seeks $32,675.20 for time already spent in connection with the motion, representing 6.7 hours of Timothy Hutter’s time and 45 hours of Joseph McGready’s time.  Plaintiff also requests an additional $2,216 for time anticipated in connection with reviewing the opposition, drafting the reply brief, and attending the hearing.

Thus, Plaintiff now claims almost 20 additional attorney hours to adjust the redactions and re-file an already-written motion, suggesting there are inefficiencies in the requested hours.

The Court therefore awards Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,150.20, representing a total of 20 hours of Mr. McGready’s time at the discounted rate of $621 and 6.7 hours of Mr. Hutter’s time at the discounted rate of $706.  These hours account for reasonable time spent to research, draft, review, and edit the original motion, to review the oppositions and draft reply briefs, to appear at the two hearings, to adjust the redactions, and to re-file the motion. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

There appearing no dispute that a valid and binding settlement agreement exists between the parties, which is evidenced by Exhibit A to the Hutter Declaration, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Additionally, the Court orders Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with bringing this motion to enforce the settlement agreement in the amount of $17,150.20.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to file and serve a proposed Judgment in conformance with the Court’s ruling on or before November 1, 2023.

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.

DATED:  October 17, 2023                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court