Judge: Michael Small, Case: 19STCV04540, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 19STCV04540    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 57

Defendants Valenzuela and Taglioli (collectively “Moving Defendants”) move for an order awarding appellate attorneys’ fees against Plaintiffs on the grounds that Valenzuela and Taglioli are the prevailing party in the action and entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs by contract. In particular, the Moving Defendants seek $225,367.50 in fees band request $2,452.10 in costs per their Memorandum of Costs.  The Court is granting the motion.

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ position that the hearing on the Moving Defendants fee motion should be continued.  On May 11, 2021, this Court entered judgment for Moving Defendants, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2023 . Because the judgment was affirmed, Rule 3.1702(c) of the California Rules of Court applies. (See Moore & Thomas, Cal. Civil Practice Procedure (2023) § 41:66.)  Under Rule 3.1702(c), the time to serve and file a noticed motion to recover attorneys’ fees is within 40 days after issuance of the remittitur. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 3.1702(c) and 8.278(c)(1).) On January 12, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a Remittitur, and on February 8, 2024, Moving Defendants timely filed the instant Motion.

Plaintiffs do not contend that Moving Defendants’ appellate counsel are not entitled to an award of fees and costs. Instead, Plaintiffs contend that the $875 per hour rate of attorneys Albers and Serlin is unreasonable and that they billed unreasonable hours of work. (Plaintiffs do not dispute the reasonableness of the paralegal’s hourly rate of $225 and 22.8 hours billed.)

The Court disagrees that $875 is an unreasonable hourly rate. Albers and Serlin’s declarations show that this rate is reasonable in the Los Angeles community for appellate work performed by attorneys with comparable experience. (Albers Decl., ¶¶ 11-15; Serlin Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  The Court’s determination in this  regard also has been informed by the Court’s own experience as an appellate practitioner in Los Angeles.

As to hours billed by Albers and Serlin, Plaintiffs object to “approximately 27 hours reviewing the Clerk’s Transcript and preparing the Statement of Facts,” “approximately 75 hours . . . on the preparation of the Opening Brief,” 26.3 hours preparing for oral argument and over 12 hours preparing an Answer to Petition for Review. (Opposition, pp. 7-8.)   In Reply, Moving Defendants reiterate that “this was a large record appeal which included an 8-volume clerk’s transcript and a 1-volume augmentation” and that as noted by the Court of Appeal, Plaintiffs’ opening brief was “deficient.” (Reply, p. 4.)   The Court agrees with the Moving Defendants and finds that their appellate attorneys’ hours were reasonable.