Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 23STCV05896, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05896    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California¿ 

County of Los Angeles¿ 

Department 78¿ 

¿ 

The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees filed by Defendants Teresa Gorman Martinez and Ruben Martinez, Trustees of GM Defined Benefit Pension Plan is GRANTED in the total amount of $12,504.00, representing $9,534.00 for defending this action, $2,910.00 for preparing this motion and attending the hearing, and $60.00 for the filing fee. 

Moving party to provide notice. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

This is a quiet title action. Plaintiffs Shai Harris, individually and as Trustee of the H McClenon Trust and ADH Harris Trust, and Jovontay Williams, Trustee of the 800 Ranch California Trust, allege that they were exposed to a promissory note secured by a deed of trust fraudulently underwritten by Funding Rush, Inc. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title on the property located at 1939 Spaulding Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90016. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY¿ 

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff Shai Harris, Trustee of the H Mcclenon Trust Dated 12/12/2019 and Shai Harris, Trustee of the ADH Harris Trust Dated 01/14/20 filed their Complaint against Defendants Funding Rush, Inc., Teresa Gorman Martinez and Ruben Martinez, trustees of GM Defined Benefit Pension Plan (“Pension Plan”), Asset Default Management, Inc., Lil Wave Financial, Inc., and Douglas J. Burton as trustees of the DBRAT Family Dated 01/01/15. 

On May 24, 2023, Plaintiffs Shai Harris, Trustee of the H Mcclenon Trust Dated 12/12/2019 and Shai Harris, Trustee of the ADH Harris Trust Dated 01/14/20, and Jovontay Williams, Trustee of the 800 Ranch California Trust Dated 06/14/22 filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 

On April 17, 2024, the Court sustained the Pension Plan’s (defendants Teresa Martinez and Ruben Martinez) demurrer to the operative FAC without leave to amend. The Court dismissed the Pension Plan with prejudice.

On May 29, 2024, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Pension Plan.

On July 31, 2024, the Pension Plan filed its Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, seeking $13,959.00 against Plaintiff Shai Harris, Trustee of the H Mcclenon Trust Dated 12/12/2019 and Shai Harris, Trustee of the ADH Harris Trust Dated 01/14/20 (“Plaintiff Trusts”). The motion is based on a written contract containing an attorneys’ fees provision and Civil Code section 1717, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1021, and 1033.5(a)(10)(A). 

As of November 5, 2024, the motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION¿ 

                          I.Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Civil Code section 1717 provides as follows:

(a)  In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded ... to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract ... shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs ... Reasonable attorneys' fees shall be fixed by the Court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 provides as follows:

Except as attorney's fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; but parties to action or proceedings are entitled to their costs, as hereinafter provided.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 provides as follows:

(a) The following items are allowable as costs under Section 1032: ... (10) attorney fees, when authorized by any of the following: (A) Contract....

Here, the Pension Plan requests that this Court award it $13,959.00 in attorneys' fees as the prevailing party, pursuant to the attorneys' fees provisions in the Promissory Note Secured by Deed of Trust (“Note”), for the successful defense of this action, along with fees incurred for preparing this motion. (Declaration of David M. Liu ("Liu Deel."), ¶¶ 4-7; and Ex. A.) The $13,959.00 sought is based on $9,534.00 in attorney's fees incurred through entry of judgment, plus $4,425.00 for attorney's fees and costs incurred to file the instant motion. (Liu Deel., ¶¶ 23-26.)

There is no dispute that the Pension Plan is the prevailing party for purposes of Civil Code section 1717 and is entitled to attorneys’ fees as part of the May 29, 2024 Judgment.[1] Specifically, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Pension Plan and against the Plaintiff Trusts, stating that the Pension Plan “prevailed on all causes of action asserted against them by [the Plaintiff Trusts] in this action.” Further, there is no dispute that the Note contains an attorneys’ fees provision. (Liu Decl., ¶ 15; Ex. A.) Page one of the Note provides as follows: “If this Note is not paid when due, the Borrower(s) promise to pay, in addition to the principal and interest due under this Note, all costs of collection and any reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the Beneficiary thereof on account of such collection, whether or not suit is filed hereon.” (Ibid.) Therefore, attorneys’ fees are appropriate in this case for the Pension Plan.

The total amount sought by this motion is $13,959.00. (Liu Decl., ¶ 26.) This is based on $9,534.00, the amount of attorney’s fees already incurred for the defense of this action, $4,365.00, the amount of attorneys’ fees in connection with this motion (5 hours to prepare this motion, 3 hours to review any opposition and prepare a reply brief, and 1 hour preparing for and attending the hearing on this motion, all at the hourly rate of $485.00), and the $60.00 filing fee. (Liu Decl., ¶¶ 23-26.)

The Court’s review of the Liu Declaration, its description of the attorneys’ years of experience, work history, and justification of their respectively hourly rates leads to the conclusion that such rates are reasonable. (Liu Decl., ¶¶ 11-23.) The Court also finds that the Pension Plan has provided sufficient evidence to support the work that was performed as a copy of a summary of the $9,534.00 is attached to the Liu Declaration. (Liu Decl., ¶ 16; Ex. D.) The Liu Declaration is sufficient to support the motion. (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 698-699.)

Plaintiff Trusts do not challenge the requested rates nor the work performed because there is no opposition to this motion. However, because there is no opposition and no reply, the Court declines to award the 3 hours that counsel anticipated to be incurred. (Liu Decl., ¶ 24.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED in the total amount of $12,504.00, representing $9,534.00 for defending this action, $2,910.00 for preparing this motion and attending the hearing, and $60.00 for the filing fee.

Moving Party to give notice.

DATED: November 8, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court