Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 19STCV34774, Date: 2022-12-08 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: 19STCV34774    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Elias Shiber’s unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendant Edwin Movagharian is granted in the total amount of $112,338.50.   

Plaintiff Elias Shiber (“Shiber”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order awarding it attorneys’ fees and costs against Defendant Edwin Movagharian (“Movagharian”) (“Defendant”) in the total amount of $112,338.50 as the prevailing party in this action on a contract.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

Plaintiff’s action arises from a $300,000 loan from Plaintiff to Defendant under a written promissory note dated January 1, 2014.  (Second Amended Complaint [“SAC”] ¶1.) After a non-jury trial, this Court found Plaintiff established his first cause of action for breach of the written note, and entered a judgment for $398,325.18 against Defendant on June 10, 2022.  (Judgment.)  This Court found Plaintiff did not establish his second cause of action in the alternative, or his third cause of action.  (Judgment.)

On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees. On November 30, 2022, Defendants Movagharian and Maywood L’Chaim (“L’Chaim”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a notice of non-opposition to the instant motion, pursuant to Defendant Movagharian’s settlement with Plaintiff.  (Notice of Non-opposition, pgs. 2-3.)  Defendants note L’Chaim is not named in the motion for fees, and any fee award should be assessed against Defendant Movagharian only.  (Notice of Non-opposition, pg. 2.)

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 provides a copy of the promissory note upon which the action was based, containing a valid provision for attorneys’ fees and costs.  (Decl. of Obagi, Exh. 1.)  Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action and is entitled to recovery of attorneys’ fees because Plaintiff prevailed on the first cause of action for breach of the written note.  (Notice of Ruling, pg. 2.)  Plaintiff’s motion is timely pursuant to CRC 3.1702(b)(1) and 8.104(a)(2).  (Decl. of Obagi ¶4, Exh. 2.)

          Plaintiff has demonstrated the requested attorneys’ fees are reasonable and proper.  Plaintiff’s Counsel Zein Obagi declares his hourly rate was $425 and is currently $550, Hee J. Kim’s hourly rate before January 1, 2021, was $375 and is currently $450, Tara Hattendorf’s hourly rate is $275, Yahir Barragan’s hourly rate is $225, and administrative staff’s hourly rate before January 1, 2021, was $85, and after January 1, 2021, is $90.  (Decl. of Obagi ¶¶7-8; Motion, pgs. 11-12.)  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.  (Wersba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254-255.)  Plaintiff has demonstrated counsel’s time incurred was reasonable and proper.  (Decl. of Obagi ¶¶21-23, 55; Exhs. 3-4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares the total fees incurred in this matter total $112,338.50 (Decl. of Obagi, ¶62), and as part of the seet;ement Defendant Movaharian agreed not to oppose the motion.  Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.

Dated:  December _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court