Pacific Rim Preservation, L.P. v. Pacific Rim Preservation, LLC

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Pacific Rim Preservation, L.P. 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Pacific Rim Preservation, L.P., is a California Limited Partnership comprised of Pacific Rim Preservation LLC as the General Partner, Crea Pacific Rim, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as the limited partner, and Crea SLP, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company, as the special limited partner. Plaintiff alleges that general partner Pacific Rim Preservation LLC is now a defunct company. Therefore, Plaintiff filed this petition for an order permitting the filing of papers with the California Secretary of State for the Certification of Dissociation of the removal of Respondent Pacific Rim Preservation, LLC as a general partner of Pacific Rim Preservation. 

On July 9, 2024, the court entered Defendant’s default. On July 16, 2024, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. The Order included an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, to be determined by motion or a memorandum of costs. Plaintiff now moves to recover its attorney’s fees and costs.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the requested amount of $10,550.50 in attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff is also awarded the requested $709.27 in costs.

Plaintiff is to file and serve a proposed judgment consistent with this and the prior rulings of this court.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

I. Legal Standard

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 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.) 

II. Analysis

Plaintiff moves to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this suit. In 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Limited Partnership Agreement. (See Meyer Decl.) Pursuant to the Limited Partnership Agreement, Defendant agreed to “indemnity the

partnership against any loss, claims . . . damages . . . costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees or damage . . . arising directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, out of a breach of any of the representations, warranties, and covenants contained in the partnership agreement.” (Meyer Decl., Exh. 1, at § 5.9(b).) In addition, the Limited Partnership Agreement also states that the General Partner will be responsible for “all damages and other amounts recoverable or payable hereunder or under applicable law by or to the Partnership or Limited Partner as a result of the occurrence of the event giving rise to such removal.” (Id. at § 9.6(b).) 

Thus, Plaintiff is now entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In total, Plaintiff seeks $10,550.50 in attorney’s fees and $709.27 in costs. 

A. Reasonable Hourly Rate

In the declaration of attorney Joel R. Meyer, counsel states that the hourly rate charged by Barnes & Thornburg in this matter varied based on each attorney’s experience. (Meyer Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff has not included the billing records or provided the rates of each attorney. 

Counsel attests, however, that “Barnes & Thornburg LLP has invoiced or will invoice Pacific Rim Preservation, L.P. the total amount of $10,550.50 for attorneys’ services related to the prosecution of this action. This amount reflects 20.2 attorney working hours at Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s discounted hourly rates.” (Id.)

Dividing the total amount of $10,550.50 by 20.2 hours amounts to an average or “blended” hourly rate of approximately $522 per hour.  

The court concludes the rate in this range is reasonable based on the prevailing rates in the Los Angeles area, the complexity of the case, the quality of services provided.  

B. Hours Reasonably Incurred

The fee award “should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to the fee.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1133 [emphasis in the original].) 

Again, counsel attests to a total of 20.2 hours of attorney time on the matter. Though Plaintiff has not provided a copy of the billing records or noted how the time was apportioned, it appears reasonable based on the case docket. Tasks taken in this matter included the filing of a petition, preparation of a “summary of the case,” the motion for fees, and attendance at the CMC. 

Here, considering the totality of the circumstances—including the complexity of the matter, the quality of the work, and the action’s success—the court finds the time quoted was reasonable and recoverable.   

Accordingly, utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, this court finds and awards the full requested amount of $10,550.50 in attorney’s fees.

III. Costs

Plaintiff also seeks $709.27 in costs, which includes including $564.10 in filing fees, $1.92 in postage fees, and $143.25 in fees for service of process. (Meyer Decl. ¶ 10.) 

Finding this request reasonable, Plaintiff is awarded the requested $709.27 in costs. 

Plaintiff is to file and serve a proposed judgment consistent with this and the prior rulings of this court.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   September 25, 2024 ___________________________________