Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21STCV23662, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 21STCV23662    Hearing Date: October 9, 2024    Dept: 34

Defendants IH4 Property West, L.P. and IH2 Property West, L.P.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in part. Fees and costs are AWARDED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in the total amount of $123,014.14. This amount is comprised of $121,800.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,214.14 in costs and expenses.

Background

Plaintiff Spencer Mays (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

From August 1, 2011 through May 21, 2017, Plaintiff resided in an apartment located at 4011 Hubert Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90008 (“Property”) under a written lease which Plaintiff renewed every year.

The Property was subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Act. On November 16, 2011, the Property was foreclosed by Aurora Loan Services, LLC. (“Aurora”).

On January 31, 2012, Aurora filed an unlawful detainer action against the previous Property owner and all occupants, including Plaintiff. Aurora voluntary dismissed their entire action with prejudice on February 7, 2024.

Around August 2014, Defendants IH4 Property West, L.P. and IH2 Property West, L.P. (“Defendants”) acquired title to the Property. On August 12, 2014, Defendants filed a second unlawful detainer action.  

On November 1, 2016, Defendants obtained a judgment of possession over the Property. Since Plaintiff was not named in Defendants unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff filed a Claim of Right of Possession. At the hearing, Plaintiff presented her lease, and the trial court deemed Plaintiff’s claim valid. Plaintiff then filed an answer to Defendants’ action.

On March 27, 2017, Defendants filed for summary judgement that was granted for Defendants and against Plaintiff.

On May 21, 2017, Plaintiff was evicted from the Property. At the time, Plaintiff was paying $450.00 per month for rent. The fair market value of a comparable apartment was $2,000.00.

On April 26, 2017, Plaintiff appealed the summary judgement to the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On March 28, 2019, summary judgement was reversed and the case remanded, holding that Plaintiff was entitled to litigate her right to possess the Property. Remittitur was not filed until February 11, 2021.

After remittitur was filed, Defendants moved to dismiss the action against Plaintiff. On April 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intention to file a Cross-Complaint. However, Defendants’ dismissal was granted.

On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint asserting the following causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-10:

1.               Violation of Rent Stabilization Ordinance § 151.09; and

2.               Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On August 13, 2021, Defendants filed a Special Motion to Strike under C.C.P. section 425.16 (Anti-SLAPP Statute).

On September 10, 2021, Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion was granted.

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff appealed the Court’s ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion. On April 16, 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court’s ruling stating that Defendants are entitled to attorney fees and costs of appeal.

On August 6, 2024, Defendants filed this Motion for Attorney’s Fees. As of September 30, 2024, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motion.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c) provides for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party in the appeal of an anti-SLAPP motion. (Morcos v. Board of Retirement (1990) 51 Cal.3d 924, 927; Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, 659, disapproved of on other grounds by Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53; Harbour Landing-Dolfann v. Anderson (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 260, 263; Evans v. Unkow (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1499.)

Discussion

1.               The Parties’ Arguments

Defendants move the court to award them $148,917.14, which is comprised of $1,154.14 in costs and expenses associated with litigation, $60.00 in filing fees for this Motion, $144,703.00 in attorney’s fees incurred, and $3,000.00 for an anticipated six hours associated with this Motion through hearing. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Matta Decl., ¶ 10; Memorandum of Costs, p. 1.)

Defendants argue that since Defendants successfully defeated Plaintiff’s appeal, Defendants are entitled to all of their fees reasonably incurred as per the appellate court’s ruling. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, 5:8-16.) Additionally, Defendants argue that the fees requested are reasonable since courts recognize that it is expensive for a defendant to prevail on an anti-SLAPP Motion. (Id., 6:7-18.) Defendants also argue that the requested hourly rate is reasonable. (Id., 7:13-28, 8:1-20.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motion.

2.               Authority for Fees & Prevailing Party

a.                Legal Standard

Civil Code section 1794(d) provides that a buyer who prevails in an action under that section, “shall be allowed by the court to recover as a part of the judgment a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees based on actual time expended, determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the buyer in connection with the commencement and the prosecution of such action.”

b.               Discussion

On April 16, 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed this court’s ruling granting Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion stating that Defendants are entitled to attorney fees and costs of appeal. (Remittitur dated June 28, 2024.)

As such, Defendants are the prevailing party and are entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

3.               Method of Calculation for Fees

Defendants argue that the lodestar adjustment method should be used to calculate attorney’s fees. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, 5:18-25, 6:20-22, 6:27-28.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition disputing the lodestar method or proposing a different method.

The court uses the lodestar adjustment method to calculate fees.

4.               Reasonableness of the Fees Claimed

a.                Reasonableness of the Hourly Rates

                                                         i.                    Legal Standard

“The courts repeatedly have stated that the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her courtroom, and this includes the determination of the hourly rate that will be used in the lodestar calculus. In making its calculation, the court may rely on its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market, as well as the experience, skill, and reputation of the attorney requesting fees, the difficulty or complexity of the litigation to which that skill was applied, and affidavits from other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the community and rate determinations in other cases.” (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437, citations omitted.) 

                                                       ii.                    Discussion

Counsel for Defendants claim the following hourly rates: (1) $500.00 per hour for Counsel Sherri Matta; (2) $600.00 per hour for Counsel Sonali Olson; (3) $600.00 per hour for Counsel Joel Witzman; (4) $600.00 per hour for Counsel Rajeev Patel; (5) $250.00 per hour for Counsel Mason Englet; (6) $900.00 per hour for Counsel Lisa Perrochet; (7) $900.00 per hour for Counsel Mark Kressel; (8) $900.00 per hour for Counsel Scott Dixler; (9) $100.00 per hour for Olson Law Group, APC’s support staff; and (10) $140.00 per hour for Horvitz & Levy’s support staff. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Matta Decl., ¶ 10.)

Defendants argue that the requested hourly rates are reasonable. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, 7:13-28, 8:1-20.) Defendants argue that since Counsel Sherri Matta has been a civil litigator for fifteen years, her $500.00 per hour fee is within the range of prevailing market rate. (Id., 7:13-18.)

Additionally, Defendants contend that although Matta was the primary attorney, three additional partners from Olson Law Group, APC were also involved in the matter. (Id., 7:19-28.) Those partners include Counsel Sonali Olson, Joel Witzman, and Rajeev Patel. (Ibid.) Olson has been a civil litigator since 1995, Witzman has been practicing since 1997, and Patel since 2001. (Ibid.) Counsel Mason Englet is a junior attorney at Olson Law Group, APC who has been practicing civil litigation since 2022. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Matta Decl., ¶ 6.)

Additionally, Defendants retained specialist appellate counsel to assist them in the appellate proceedings brought by Plaintiff from Horvitz & Levy. (Id., 8:3-20.) Counsel Lisa Perrochet is a partner at Horvitz & Levy with over 30 years of experience in civil appeals. (Ibid.) Perrochet is also a California State Bar Certified Appellate Specialist since 1996 and is on the board of Association of Southern California Defense Counsel. (Ibid.) Counsel Mark Kressel is also a partner at Horvitz & Levy with previous experience as Chair of the ABA’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, Vice President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, and President of the Barristers Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association. (Ibid.) Counsel Scott Dixler is a partner at Horvitz & Levy with extensive experience in appellate proceedings, as well as, serving on the Amicus Committee of the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel and on the Executive Board of the American Bar Association Judicial Division’s Council of Appellate Lawyers. (Ibid.) The regular hourly rate for Perrochet is $1,250.00, $1,025.000 for Kressel, and $925.00 for Dixler. However, Defendants argue that on this motion Defendants are requesting an hourly rate of $900.00 which is reasonable due to counsel’s experience. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ Motion.

After considering the information provided, the court finds that the appropriate hourly rate for (1) Counsel Sherri Matta is $500/hr; (2) Counsel Sonali Olson is $500/hr; (3) Counsel Joel Witzman is $500/hr; (4) Counsel Rajeev Patel is $500/hr; (5) Counsel Mason Englet is $250/hr; (6) Counsel Lisa Perrochet is $550/hr; (7) Counsel Mark Kressel is $550/hr; (8) Counsel Scott Dixler is $550/hr.

Furthermore, the court finds that attorney’s fees should not be awarded for services provided by Olson Law Group, APC and Horvitz & Levy’s support staff. (Roe v. Halbig (2018) 29 Cal.App.th 286, 312.)

b.               Reasonableness of the Number of Hours

                                                         i.                    Legal Standard

“Under the lodestar adjustment methodology, the trial court must initially determine the actual time expended and then ascertain whether under all the circumstances¿of the case the amount of actual time expended and the monetary charge being made for the time expended are reasonable. Factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, the complexity of the case and procedural demands, the attorney skill exhibited and the results achieved. The prevailing party and fee applicant bears the burden of showing that the fees incurred were reasonably necessary to¿the conduct of the litigation, and were reasonable in amount. It follows that if the prevailing party fails to meet this burden, and the court finds the time expended or amount charged is not reasonable under the circumstances, then the court must take this into account and award attorney fees in a lesser amount.” (Mikhaeilpoor v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 240, 247 [cleaned up].) 

                                                       ii.                    Discussion

Counsel for Defendants claim that the following hours were incurred: (1) 148.20 total hours and 6.00 anticipated total hours to attend to this motion through hearing for Counsel Sherri Matta; (2) 5.00 total hours for Counsel Sonali Olson; (3) 1.20 total hours for Counsel Joel Witzman; (4) 5.70 total hours for Counsel Rajeev Patel; (5) 3.70 total hours for Counsel Mason Englet; (6) 1.50 total hours for Counsel Lisa Perrochet; (7) 22.70 total hours for Counsel Mark Kressel; and (8) 47.30 total hours for Counsel Scott Dixler. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Matta Decl., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ hours claimed.

In this case, the declarations and billing records provided by Defendants’ counsel are sufficient to meet the burden of proving the reasonableness of the claimed fees in terms of amounts and tasks. To satisfy this burden, evidence and descriptions of billable tasks must be presented in sufficient detail, enabling the court to evaluate whether the case was overstaffed, the time attorneys spent on specific claims, and the reasonableness of the hours expended. (Lunada Biomedical v. Nunez (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 459, 486-487.)

Defendants’ fee recovery is based on 241.30 hours Defendants’ counsel spent litigating this case through the instant motion. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Matta Decl., ¶ 10.) The fees incurred are reasonable, as captured in the billing records submitted to this Court. (Id., Exh. 2-3.) Defendants’ counsel’s billing records reflect the actual time and descriptions of services performed in connection with litigating this case. Although the submission of such detailed time records is not necessary under California law, if submitted, such records “are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.)

Nevertheless, since Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motion, Defendants do not need to prepare a reply. As such, Counsel Sherri Matta’s anticipated time to attend to this motion through hearing of 6.00 hours (3.00 hours to review opposition, research, and draft reply brief and an additional 3.00 hours to prepare for and appear at the hearing on this motion) are reduced to a total of 3.00 hours. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Matta Decl., ¶ 10.)

Accordingly, the court grants Defendants’ requested attorney’s fees in the reduced amount of $120,300.00 for 235.30 hours billed, and $1,500.00 [3 hours at $500/hr] in an allowance of an additional three hours total associated with this Motion through hearing. A total of $121,800.00.

5.               Reasonableness of the Costs Claimed

Defendants filed a Memorandum of Costs listing $620.38 in filing and motion fees and $533.76 of other costs incurred. (Memorandum of Costs, p. 1.) Additionally, Defendants list $60.00 for a filing fees of this Motion. (Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Matta Decl., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff has not opposed Defendants’ costs and expenses.

The court notes that as a prevailing party, Defendants can obtain costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b).

Accordingly, the court finds that all of these costs are reasonable and allowable under at least one of the costs statutes. The court will award all $1,214.14 in these costs and expenses.

Conclusion

Defendants IH4 Property West, L.P. and IH2 Property West, L.P.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in part. Fees and costs are AWARDED in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff in the total amount of $123,014.14. This amount is comprised of $121,800.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,214.14 in costs and expenses.