Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00270, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 22CMCV00270    Hearing Date: November 30, 2023    Dept: A

22CMCV00270 Fiasco Enterprises v. Zircon (USA) Logistics, Ltd., et al.

Thursday, November 30, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

I.        BACKGROUND

       The complaint alleges claims for breach of contract and common counts arising from Defendants’ alleged failure to pay for transportation and related services provided by Plaintiff in the amount of $84,570.25. On November 14, 2023, after a court trial at which Defendant, Warren Jeffrey, did not appear, the Court entered judgment for $97,409.37, comprised of the principal amount alleged in the complaint, prejudgment interest, and costs. Defendant Jeffrey was the remaining Defendant after the Court struck Defendant Zircon’s answer on November 29, 2022.

       Plaintiff requests an award of $25,768.00 in attorney’s fees as provided in the credit application signed by Defendants. Defendant did not file an opposition.

II.      DISCUSSION

       A prevailing party in an action to enforce a contract may recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred if the contract so provides. (Civ. Code, § 1717.) Defendants signed a credit application that provided for recovery of “all reasonable collection and/or legal fees” in the event Plaintiff was required to refer the matter to an attorney. (Defendant’s Ex. 3.)

       To determine whether fees are reasonable, the court begins with the “lodestar”, which is the number of hours reasonably spent multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The court considers a number of 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.’” (PLCM Group at 1096.) The lodestar figure can be adjusted based on the factors specific to the case. (Id.)

       To determine a reasonable market rate, "the courts will look to equally difficult or complex types of litigation.” (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 700.) The “market rate” is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the court is located. (Id.) The trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her courtroom for the type of litigation at issue. The prevailing party is entitled to “’compensation for all the hours reasonably spent’ in litigating the action to a successful conclusion. (Ibid., italics in original.) ‘Reasonably spent’ means that time spent ‘in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation.’” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 394.)

       The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s billing records in support of the fee request. Given Plaintiff’s counsel’s experience in freight charge litigation and transportation law, the non-complex nature of the case, Defendants’ absence at trial and at court hearings throughout the litigation of this matter, and the result obtained, the Court finds that $400 per hour is reasonable. (Decl. of Kathleen C. Jeffries.)  

       The billing records reflect that Plaintiff’s counsel spent 53.4 hours litigating this case from July 10, 2022, through October 30, 2023, which the Court finds were reasonably incurred. Accordingly, the Court awards total fees of $21,360.00 ($400 per hour x 53.4 hours), reduced from $25,768.00.