Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 19NWCV00590 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 19NWCV00590, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00590 Hearing Date: July 28, 2022 Dept: SEC

STRATEGIC FUNDING SOURCE, INC. v. CHAVEZ

CASE NO.: 19NWCV00590

HEARING: 07/28/22

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $22,539.00 and costs in the amount of $1,553.15.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of July 26, 2022.

Plaintiff moves for recovery of attorney’s fees in the amount of $23,740.00 pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1717. The Court has jurisdiction to rule on ancillary matters, such as fees and costs while an appeal is pending. However, execution of this award is stayed pending completion of appeal.

Cal. Civ. Code §1717(a)(1) provides attorneys fees to the prevailing party in any action on a contract where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party. Here, it is undisputed that Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff on March 25, 2022, and Plaintiff has proffered evidence of an agreement between the parties establishing Plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §1717.

Plaintiff’s motion seeks fees based on the firm’s blended hourly rate of $300/hr. The Court may consider the prevailing rate for attorneys of similar skill and experience in providing comparable legal services in the community. (City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 78, 82-83.). The Court finds Plaintiff’s firm’s blended hourly rate reasonable.

Plaintiff has established an entitlement to reasonable fees in the amount of $23,740.00 —the amount sought reduced by 4 hours because no Reply was filed. The Court’s determination is undertaken in the exercise of its discretion to determine whether rates or hours are reasonable. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501.)

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Costs (served on April 5, 2022). Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(1), “[a]ny notice of motion to strike or tax costs must be served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum.” “The failure to file a motion to tax costs constitutes a waiver of the right to object.” (Douglas v. Willis (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 287, 289.) “After the time has passed for a motion to strike or tax costs or for determination of that motion the clerk must immediately enter the costs on the judgment.” (CRC Rule 3.1700(b)(4).) As of July 26, 2022, there is no indication that any Motion to Tax/Strike Costs has been filed. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to costs in the amount of $1,553.15. as reflected in the Memorandum of Costs and the instant Motion pursuant to CRC 3.1700(b)(4).