Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV24723, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Department 71: Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff at (213) 830-0771 before the set hearing time.  See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).   All parties are otherwise encouraged to appear by Court Call for all matters.

Case Number: 19STCV24723    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Michael Morris’s unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants BaronHR Security, Inc., Fortress Worldwide, Inc., BaronHR Group, LLC, and BaronHR, LLC, is granted in the reduced total amount of $13,750.00.   

Plaintiff Michael Morris (“Morris”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order awarding him attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendants BaronHR Security, Inc. (“Security, Inc.”), Fortress Worldwide, Inc. (“Fortress”), BaronHR Group, LLC (“Group LLC”), and BaronHR, LLC (“BaronHR LLC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the total amount of $15,750.00 pursuant to an attorneys’ fees provision in a contract.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination action on July 16, 2019.  (“Complaint”.)  On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, “Parties”) entered into a valid and binding Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims (“Settlement Agreement”) to resolve Plaintiff’s claims in exchange for a settlement sum of $250,000.00.  (Motion to Enforce Settlement, Decl. of Stratos, Exh. A [Settlement Agreement].)  The Settlement Agreement provided that the “Agreement shall be admissible in any proceeding to enforce the terms thereof, if necessary, and the prevailing party in any such proceeding shall be entitled to recover costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred thereby.”  (Settlement Agreement §13.0.) 

On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement pursuant to C.C.P. §664.6.  On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff’s Motion was granted, and this Court ruled Plaintiff was entitled to judgment in the amount of $163,000.00 and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with enforcing the Settlement Agreement.  (Judgment.)

On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.  As of the date of this hearing, Defendants have not filed an opposition.

Attorneys’ Fees Motion

When authorized by contract, statute, or law, reasonable attorneys’ fees are “allowable costs.” (C.C.P. §1033.5(a)(10)(A)-(C); Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 606; Pacific Custom Pools, Inc. v. Turner Construction Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1268.)

Civil Code §1717(a) provides: “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 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 method for calculating an attorney fee award pursuant to Civil Code §1717 is the lodestar method.  (PLCM Grp. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095.)  This method multiples the time reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.  (Id.)  “[T]he loadstar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (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.”  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132, internal citations omitted.)

Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action and is entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees because Plaintiff prevailed in enforcing the Settlement Agreement.  (7/26/22 Ruling, pgs. 3-4.)

          Plaintiff has demonstrated the requested rate is reasonable and proper.  Plaintiff’s Counsel Jesse S. Stratos declares his hourly rate is currently $500.00 per hour.  (Decl. of Stratos ¶8.)  Plaintiff has demonstrated counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable and commensurate with the rates of other attorneys of comparable skill and experience in the legal community.  (Decl. of Stratos ¶9; Wersba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254-255.) Plaintiff requests payment for a total of 31.5 hours, including 13 hours to prepare a motion for attorney’s fees.  (Decl. of Stratos ¶¶11.) Given the brevity of the motion and the declaration the Court is reducing the requested attorney’s fees to $13,750.00.  

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in the reduced amount of $13,750.00.

Dated:  January _____, 2023

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court