Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: SLS Property Solutions v. Overland Pacific and Cutler, Date: 2023-06-14 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff SLS Property Solutions Inc.’s attorney fee motion is granted as to attorney fees, costs, and postjudgment interest.  The court invites argument on prejudgment interest.

The court excuses the late filing of the motion.  (See Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners’ Assn., Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 128, 135.)  Given the unusual judgment terms, plaintiff understandably waited to seek attorney fees until High Speed Rail paid its claims.  (See 2/14/23 Schlecht decl. ¶¶ 11-14 & Exs. G-H; see also 6/7/23 Schlecht decl. ¶¶ 5-7.)

Plaintiff was the prevailing party.  It achieved its litigation goals by facilitating payment of its claims by reducing the settlement to judgment.  (See Waterwood Enterprises, LLC v. City of Long Beach (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 955, 965; De la Cuesta v. Benham (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1292-1293.)  Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking payment was neither material nor prejudicial.

Plaintiff has shown it reasonably incurred $76,635.00 in attorney fees and $1,562.34 in costs.  (See Civ. Code § 1717; Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A), see also PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 [court values attorney fees]; City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784-785 [court may credit counsel].)

Plaintiff has also shown it is entitled to $4,007.80 in postjudgment interest.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 685.010, subd. (a)(1); 2/14/23 Schlecht decl. ¶¶ 11-13, 17.)

As for prejudgment interest, the court invites argument on when damages need to became certain or reasonably ascertainable to trigger prejudgment interest.

The court grants defendant’s request for judicial notice.

Plaintiff shall give notice.