Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel v. Luther Linton, et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Brandi Linton and Pecorelli Enterprises 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Counsel filed this action against Defendants Brandi Linton, Luther Linton, and Pecorelli Enterprises, alleging violations of the Immigration Consultant Act.  Defendant Luther Linton was dismissed on August 13, 2021.

After a bench trial on March 7 and 8, 2022, the court issued an informal statement of decision on April 7, 2022, finding in favor of Plaintiff. Judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendants was entered on April 29, 2022.  The court permanently enjoined Defendants from violating the Immigration Consultants Act for a period of ten years.

Plaintiff now moves to recover attorney’s fees on appeal.  Defendants opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s  Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART in the total amount of $5,000.00

Plaintiff is to file and serve a proposed Amended Judgment accordingly.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.  

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

A. Whether Attorney’s Fees Are Recoverable on an Appeal Under the ICA

The Immigration Consultants Act (“ICA”) provides that a party who claims a violation of the ICA and prevails in the action “shall recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Bus. & Prof. Code § 22446.5(b).) Consistent with that mandate, this court awarded Plaintiff its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred at trial in the amount of $240,750.00. (See 06/15/2022 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff now relies on section 22446.5(b) to recover its attorney’s fees incurred defending the appeal. As a general rule, “ ‘ [a] statute authorizing an attorney fee award at the trial court level includes appellate attorney fees unless the statute specifically provides otherwise.’ ” (Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, 265 [emphasis added].) 

The parties have not cited—and this court’s own search has not returned—any case authority addressing the recovery of attorney’s fees following an appeal under the ICA. Be that as it may, a review of the statute suggests the ICA is silent on this issue. (See BPC §§ 22440-22449.) Therefore, the ICA does not “specifically provide[]” an exception to the general rule that attorney’s fees authorized by statute includes those incurred on appeal.  (See Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn., supra, 2 Cal.App.5th at 265.) Accordingly, this court concludes Plaintiff is once again entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs after “prevailing” on appeal.  (See Bus. & Prof. Code § 22446.5(b).)

B. Determination of Reasonable Fee

The determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound discretion of trial courts.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134.)  “The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate….’”  “[T]he lodestar 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….”  (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.)  In setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “‘fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.’”  (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664.)  The burden is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove reasonableness of the fees.  (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615.)

 

The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee award which will not be overturned absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1393-94.  The Court need not explain its calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.)

Plaintiff’s counsel has requested the total amount of $10,950 for additional attorney’s fees in connection to the appeal and this motion.  This is based upon 14.6 hours times $750/hr.

As an initial observation, it is somewhat difficult for this Court to determine whether the times claimed by Plaintiff’s counsel in connection to the recent appeal were reasonable or not.  This is based upon the simple fact that no one has bothered to ever send this Court a copy (courtesy or otherwise) of any of those referenced documents filed in the appellate proceedings. [FN 1]   Be that as it may, this Court is able to use its prior experiences and familiarity with such filings to determine the reasonable time one would expect for such efforts.

Additionally, this Court does agree with Defendant that $500 per hour is a more appropriate amount in this case for such tasks.

Accordingly, utilizing a lodestar method, and based upon the totality of the circumstances, this Court finds that the total amount of additional fees to be awarded to the Plaintiff is $5,000.00  (10 hours at $500/hr.).  

Plaintiff is to file and serve a proposed Amended Judgment accordingly.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   April 27, 2023 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

FN 1 - Indeed, all parties are required to serve a courtesy copy upon the trial judge of all “briefs” filed in the appellate proceedings.  See, Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 8.212 (c)(1).  This would logically include many of the documents/motions filed in the recent appeal.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.