Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV01204, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 20STCV01204    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for Attorneys Fees

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Renaissance Arts Academy, Inc.

Resp. Party:    None

SUBJECT:         Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Pre-Judgment Interest

Moving Party:  Plaintiff Renaissance Arts Academy, Inc.

Resp. Party:    None

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys Fees is GRANTED. Attorneys’ fees and costs are AWARDED for Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $64,205.00.

        Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Pre-Judgment Interest is GRANTED. Prejudgment interest is AWARDED for Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $110,892.16.

BACKGROUND:

On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff Renaissance Arts Academy, Inc. filed its Complaint against Defendants Limai Education, Inc., Limai Holdings, Inc., and Simon Shao on a cause of action for breach of contract.

On August 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint.

On November 9, 2022, by oral request of Plaintiff, the Court dismissed with prejudice Limai Education, Inc. from the First Amended Complaint.

On December 9, 2022, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Limai Holdings, Inc. and Simon Shao in the sum of $594,334.90, plus prejudgment interest and attorneys fees, within interest at the rate of ten percent per annum from the date of entry of the judgment until paid.

On January 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed: (1) Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees; and (2) Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Pre-Judgment Interest. Plaintiff concurrently filed Declaration of Brian D. Boydston and a proposed order for each of the motions.

Defendant has not filed an opposition or other response to either of the motions.

ANALYSIS:

I.            Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees

A.      Legal Standard

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (b).)¿ 

“‘Prevailing party’ includes the party with a net monetary recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendant where neither plaintiff nor defendant obtains any relief, and a defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant. If any party recovers other than monetary relief and in situations other than as specified, the ‘prevailing party’ shall be as determined by the court, and under those circumstances, the court, in its discretion, may allow costs or not and, if allowed, may apportion costs between the parties on the same or adverse sides pursuant to rules adopted under Section 1034.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).)¿ 

Attorneys’ fees are allowed as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).)¿¿ 

B.      Attorneys’ Fees Clause

The contract at issue includes the following clause:

“11. Attorney’s fees. If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding involving the Premises whether founded in tort, contract or equity, or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereafter defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Such fees may be awarded in the same suit or recovered in a separate suit, whether or not such action or proceeding is pursued to decision or judgment. The term, ‘Prevailing Party’ shall include, without limitation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought, as the case may be, whether by compromise, settlement, judgment, or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker or its claim or defense. The attorneys’ fees award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be such as to fully reimburse all attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred. In addition, Sublessor shall be entitled to attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the preparation and service of notices of Default and consultation in connection therewith, whether or not a legal action is subsequently commenced in connection with such Default or resulting Breach ($200 is a reasonable minimum per occurrence for such services and consultation).”

(Decl. Boydston, Ex. A, ¶ 11.)

        The contract is signed by the executive director of Plaintiff and by Defendant Simon Shao.

        The Court finds that there is a valid contractual provision that authorizes the award of attorneys’ fees in this matter.

C.      Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court for $64,205.00 in attorneys’ fees. (Motion for Attorneys Fees, p. 4:18–20.) Plaintiff provides multiple invoices demonstrating the fees incurred, although there does not appear to be a summary either in the motion, the declaration, or the exhibits that would easily allow the Court to assess either the hourly rate or whether the amount of hours spent was reasonable.  Instead, the Court was simply supplied with page after page of counsel’s billing invoices.  (Decl. Boydston, Ex. B.)

The Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees is unopposed.

From the Court’s review of the exhibits, the Court was able to discern: (1) that Plaintiff incurred approximately $5,062.85 in costs (i.e., filing fees, service of process, and deposition transcript costs); (2) that Plaintiff’s Counsel’s hourly rate is $400 per hour (which is calculated by dividing the amount of fees incurred at specific times by the number of hours spent incurring those fees); and (3) that Plaintiff’s Counsel spent approximately 147.86 hours on this litigation (which is calculated by subtracting the amount of costs from the requested amount of total fees, and then dividing that amount by the hourly rate). (Decl. Boydston, Ex. B.)

The Court finds that the costs incurred and the hourly rate are reasonable. Had the motion been opposed, the Court might have concluded that some of the hours incurred by the prevailing Plaintiff were unnecessary. However, since the motion has not been opposed, the Court concludes that Defendant itself believes that the hours and attorney's fees requested are reasonable.

.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys Fees. The Court awards attorneys’ fees and costs for Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally. Costs are awarded in the amount of $5,062.85, and attorneys’ fees are awarded in the amount of $50,000.00, for a total amount of $55,062.85.

D.     Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys Fees is GRANTED. Attorneys’ fees and costs are AWARDED for Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $64,205.00.

II.        Motion for Prejudgment Interest

A.      Legal Standard

“A person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except when the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. . . .” (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (a).)

“Every person who is entitled under any judgment to receive damages based upon a cause of action in contract where the claim was unliquidated, may also recover interest thereon from a date prior to the entry of judgment as the court may, in its discretion, fix, but in no event earlier than the date the action was filed.” (Civ. Code, § 3287, subd. (b).)

“If a contract entered into after January 1, 1986, does not stipulate a legal rate of interest, the obligation shall bear interest at a rate of 10 percent per annum after a breach.” (Civ. Code, § 3289, subd. (b).)

B.      Discussion

Plaintiff requests $110,892.16 in prejudgment interest. (Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Pre-Judgment Interest, p. 5:20–21.) Plaintiff argues: (1) that prejudgment interest is appropriate and should be calculated pursuant to Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a) because most, but not all, of the damages were certain on specific dates; and (2) that pursuant to Civil Code section 3289, subdivision (b), the appropriate interest rate is 10%. (Id. at pp. 3:23–25, 4:2–4.)

        The Court agrees that the damages that Civil Code sections 3287, subdivision (a) and 3289, subdivision (b) apply here. In addition, the Court does not see notice any problems with Plaintiff’s calculations.

The Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Pre-Judgment Interest is unopposed.

        The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Pre-Judgment Interest. The Court awards for Plaintiff and against Defendant prejudgment interest in the amount of $110,892.16.

C.      Conclusion

        Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Pre-Judgment Interest is GRANTED. Prejudgment interest is AWARDED for Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $110,892.16.