Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff John Zheng (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Sally Ing and Samuel Ing (collectively, “Defendants”) for breach of contract arising from the Commercial Property Purchase Agreement for the purchase of the property described as 9643-9445 Valley Blvd., Rosemead, California 91770. The complaint set forth three causes of action for (1) fraudulent inducement, (2) breach of written contract, and (3) declaratory relief. 

On April 26, 2022, with the Hon. Douglas W. Stern presiding, impaneled a jury for trial. 

On April 28, 2022, Defendants made an oral motion for non-suit and dismissed their Cross-Complaint. 

On June 2, 2022, the Judge Stern entered judgment naming Defendants the prevailing party and awarding them the entirety of the $22,500.00 deposit. 

On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. 

On October 27, 2022, Defendants’ motion for attorney fees was granted, and Defendants were awarded $74,018.49 as the prevailing party. 

On June 4, 2024, the appellate court affirmed the judgment in Defendants’ favor. 

On July 8, 2024, Defendants filed their motion for attorney fees and a memorandum of costs, seeking fees and costs related to the appeal. 

Any opposition to Defendants’ motion for attorney fees was due on or before September 24, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date, nor any motion to tax costs.  

 

II. LEGAL STANDARD¿ 

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

The attorney bears the burden of proof as to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(c)(5).) This burden requires competent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559.) “Testimony of an attorney as to the number of hours worked on a particular case is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records.” (Ibid.) 

A plaintiff’s verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (See Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) In determining a reasonable attorney fee, the trial court begins with the lodestar, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (Warren v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 24, 36.)  The lodestar may then be adjusted based on factors specific to the case in order to fix the fee at the fair market value of the legal services provided. (Ibid.) These facts include (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award. (Ibid.) 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

Defendants move for an award of attorney fees in the amount of $26,190.00, consisting of (1) 76.8 hours of time spent throughout the pendency of Plaintiff’s appeal at the hourly billing rate of $300.00 for a total of $23,040.00, and (2) an estimate of an additional 10.50 hours of time spent preparing, filing, reviewing/analyzing opposition papers, preparing a reply, and attending the hearing on this motion at the hourly billing rate of $300.00 for an additional $3,150.00 in attorney fees. Further, Defendants seek costs in the amount of $2,641.47 for the appeal, as evidenced by the cost memorandum filed concurrently with the motion. 

A. Entitlement to Attorney Fees 

Defendants were previously awarded attorney fees as the prevailing party pursuant to the contractual provision provided in the Commercial Property Purchase Agreement: “ATTORNEY FEES: In any action, proceeding, or arbitration between Buyer and Seller arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Buyer or Seller shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs from the non-prevailing Buyer or Seller….” (Klinkert Decl. ¶ 1; Exh. A. at ¶ 29.)  

It is undisputed that Defendants are the prevailing party in this action and that they entitled to a reasonable amount in attorney fees incurred arising from the appeal. 

B. Reasonableness of Fees 

i. Reasonable Hourly Rate 

“The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in [her] court.” (Ibid.) 

Defendants’ counsel seeks to recover attorneys’ fees for his own work on the matter at the hourly rate of $300.00. The Court finds the rate to be reasonable, especially in light of the lack of opposition challenging the billing rate. 

ii. Reasonable Hours Incurred 

“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) “The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) 

Defendants seek to recover attorneys’ fees for 76.8 hours spent on this matter. (Klinkert Decl. ¶7; Exh. C.) At the rate identified above, Defendants represent they are seeking a lodestar of $23,040.00 for time spent related to the appeal. Here, Defendants’ verified billing invoices are prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services listed were necessarily incurred. (See Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.) Plaintiff did not file any opposition to challenge any specific billing items. 

Lastly, Defendants seek an additional 10.50 hours of anticipated time at the rate of $300.00 per hour related to this motion. However, considering the motion is unopposed, the Court finds it appropriate to reduce the hours sought for work not actually performed. Defendants are awarded three hours at the rate of $300.00 per hour collectively for the unopposed motion and to appear at the hearing, for a total of $900.00 of additional time. 

Based on the Court’s review of the billing statements provided, and the lack of opposition, the Court finds that the reasonable lodestar in this case to be $23,940.00 total.  

C. Costs 

Allowable costs “shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (c)(2).) Any items not specifically mentioned by statute “may be allowed or denied in the court's discretion.” (Id., subd. (c)(4).) '“If the items appear to be proper charges the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the defendant [citations], and the burden of showing that an item is not properly chargeable or is unreasonable is upon the [objecting party].' [Citation.]” (Nelson v. Anderson (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 111, 131.)   

Defendants request a total of $2,641.47 in costs and expenses. The cost items appear to be proper. Plaintiff did file any opposition or motion objecting to the costs. Therefore, Defendants’ request for $2,641.47 in costs is granted. 

 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for attorney fees is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $23,940.00 in attorney fees and $2,641.47 in costs. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: October 7, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim¿ 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.