Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: BC723902, Date: 2025-01-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC723902 Hearing Date: January 7, 2025 Dept: 40
BC723902 Miguel
Valencia, Jr., et al v. Armando Mendoza, et al.
Tuesday,
January 7, 2025
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The
complaint, filed on October 2, 2018, alleges that that Defendants sold real
property located in Rancho Palos Verdes to Plaintiffs. Defendants allegedly
failed to disclose material defects in the real property. Plaintiffs alleged 10
causes of action for contract-, fraud-, and negligence-related claims.
The
matter was arbitrated, and the arbitrator issued an award in favor of
Plaintiffs. On June 17, 2024, the clerk issued a writ of execution against
Defendants in the principal amount of $1,887,256.83. Judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs was entered on September 28, 2022.
In a
published opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order
confirming the arbitration award rendered on July 1, 2024 and issued its
remittitur on October 17, 2024.
II.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs
request a fee award of $50,703.50 incurred to defend against Defendants’ appeal
of the arbitrator’s award as permitted by statute where the parties’ agreement
includes an attorney fee provision permitting recovery of fees by the
prevailing party. (Civ.
Code, § 1717.) The purchase agreement signed by both parties permits the
prevailing buyer to recover an award of attorney’s fees. (Mot. Ex. 4, ¶ 25.) The Court of Appeal affirmed
the trial court’s order confirming the arbitration award in Plaintiffs’ favor.
(Mot. Ex. 3, p. 32.)
Plaintiffs
timely served Defendants with this motion. Defendants did not file an
opposition.
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
court may rely on his or her own experience and is given broad discretion in
calculating reasonable attorney’s fees. (Ketchum
v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 ["The experienced trial
judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his
court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be
disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.”].)
The
court has discretion to apply a reduction in hours for duplicative and/or
excessive billing. Proper factors to consider in applying a reduction are the
lack of complexity, that the matter did not go to trial, that name partners
were doing work that could have been done by lower-billing attorneys, and that
all the attorneys were doing work that could have been done by paralegals. (Morris
v. Hyundai Motor America (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 41 [Trial court
properly applied a 39 percent reduction of the lodestar].)
Ultimately,
the trial court “is the best judge of the value of professional services
rendered in its court” and its determination will not be disturbed unless it is
“clearly wrong.” (Akins
v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1134.)
The
Court of Appeal opinion was lengthy and considered given the de novo review of
the trial court’s order confirming the arbitration award. (Mot. Ex. 3, p.19). After finding that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in finding no good cause to continue the
hearing, the Court of Appeal considered anew whether the arbitrator erred in
excluding evidence and testimony. (Mot.
Ex. 3, p. 25- 32). The court determined there was no error.
Plaintiffs’
fee award includes fees not only to defend against Defendants’ appeal, but also
for fees incurred to prepare a response to Defendants’ petition for rehearing, for
review of Defendants’ Petition for Review in the Supreme Court, and preparation
of Plaintiffs’ answer to that Petition.
Plaintiffs
incurred fees relating to the appeal from November 23, 2022 through the date
the Remittitur was issued on October 17, 2024. (Kerry Cohen decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 5.)
Kerry Cohen was primarily responsible for preparation of the appeal, totaling
144.2 hours with intermittent reviews by Barry L. Cohen totaling 3.8 hours for
a total of 148 hours expended. Kerry Cohen billed between $325 per hour
increased to $400 per hour on July 1, 2024, while Barry L. Cohen billed $400.00
per hour increased to $500 per hour on September 3, 2024. The court finds that
the rates are reasonable. The weighted average hourly rate is $339.61 (total
fee / number of hours) which the court finds to be reasonable.
The
court finds that Plaintiffs’ time records do not include blocked billing and
does not reflect any duplicative or inefficient billing given the number of
issues involved in the appeal and subsequent petitions for rehearing and review
by the California Supreme Court.
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees of $50,703.50 is
GRANTED.