Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV09818, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.

IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.  Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business.  http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx
    
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.


 


 

Case Number: 20STCV09818    Hearing Date: November 7, 2022    Dept: 74

20STCV09818           ALBERT GONZAZ vs ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUAUALTY COMPANY

Defendant, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees [CCP §1033.5; CRC 870.2]

TENTATIVE RULING:  Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED. The Court awards Defendant/Cross-Complainant contractual attorneys’ fees in the amount of $39,646.25.

Background

On September 18, 2018, Plaintiff Albert Gonzaz individually and dba Alomar Bail Bonds Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Defendant Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, Inc. in the Fresno County Superior Court. Plaintiff alleged Defendant’s termination of their business agreement and subsequent letter to the California Department of Insurance prevents Plaintiff from avoiding default on bonds Plaintiff issued.

On May 16, 2019, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Alomar Bail Bonds, Inc. asserting claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) common count; (3) common count; (4) specific performance; and (5) declaratory relief.  

On March 11, 2020, the case was received in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

On January 26, 2022, the Court granted Defendant/Cross-Complainant’s unopposed motion for summary judgment as to the complaint and summary adjudication as to the first, second, and third causes of action in the cross-complaint.

On January 27, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant dismissed Roes 1-75 and Alomar Bail Bonds, Inc. from the cross-complaint. On February 9, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant dismissed the fourth and fifth causes of action from the cross-complaint.

The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant/Cross-Complainant on February 24, 2022, awarding Cross-Complainant $143,678.93 in damages.

Motion

On April 15, 2022, Defendant/Cross-Complainant filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees seeking attorneys’ fees in the amount of $42,796.25.

The motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(10), a prevailing party may recover attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law. Civil Code section 1717(a) provides “[i]n 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 either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs.”

“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.) “The basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.” (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.)  “The law is clear, however, that an award of attorney fees may be based on counsel's declarations, without production of detailed time records.” (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.)

Discussion

Paragraph 31 of the West-Pac Bail Bond General Agency Bail Bond Underwriting Agreement, to which Defendant/Cross-Complaint was made a party, provides “[s]hould any litigation arise between parties hereto related to this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in addition to any other relief granted.” (Sosa Decl. Ex. 3-4.) Defendant/Cross-Complaint is the prevailing party in this action on the contract and is therefore entitled to recover attorneys’ fees pursuant to the underwriting agreement between the parties.

The fee request is supported by the declaration of attorney Carlos Sosa and his firm’s billing records. (Sosa Decl. ¶¶ 6-11, Ex. 5.)  

“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.) Sosa billed Defendant/Cross-Complainant at $175.00 per hour, which the Court finds to be a reasonable hourly rate in the Los Angeles area for similar work.

The provided invoices indicate Defendant/Cross-Complainant incurred $38,946.25 in attorneys’ fees for work performed through March 31, 2022. (Sosa Decl. ¶¶ 7-8, Ex. 5.) The Court has reviewed the invoices and finds the hours claimed reasonable considering the work performed and the needs of the case.

Sosa further indicated that work continued after March 31, 2022 and estimates the following additional hours will be incurred: (1) Preparation of the motion, review of any opposition and preparing the reply brief: 16 hours; (2) preparing oral argument: 2 hours; (3) participation in oral argument: 2 hours; (4) Preparing post hearing orders, etc.: 2 hours. (Totaling 22 hours),” or $3,850.00. (Sosa Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendant/Cross-Complainant could have provided evidence of the number of hours spent up to the filing of the motion, but failed to do so, relying instead upon a block-billed estimate. The instant motion is unopposed and therefore many of the estimated hours are unnecessary, including review of an opposition, preparation of a reply, preparing for the hearing, and participation in oral argument. The Court also finds two hours to prepare any post hearing orders excessive. The fee motion consists of a one-page notice, a three-page memorandum, and an eleven-paragraph declaration with exhibits. The issues are neither difficult nor novel and the memorandum required minimal legal research. The Court finds the reasonable number of hours incurred on the fee motion and any post-hearing orders to be 4 hours, or $700.00.

Accordingly, the Court awards Defendant/Cross-Complainant contractual attorneys’ fees in the amount of $39,646.25.