Judge Randy Rhodes, Case 22CHCV00394 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees as the prevailing party pursuant to the underlying contract.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff is awarded $40,226.00 in attorney fees.

This is an unlawful detainer action in which Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendant overdue rent totaling $37,500.00, plus fees. (Compl. ¶ 19.) On 6/1/22, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant. On 9/29/22, Defendant filed its answer.

On 1/9/23, the jury trial commenced, and on 1/12/23, the jury returned its verdict for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the total amount of $194,375.00. The judgment was entered on 1/18/23.

On 2/7/23, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. No opposition has been filed to date. On 3/13/23, Plaintiff filed a supplemental brief with additional attorney fees incurred on post-trial motions.

An award of attorney fees is proper when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1032, subd. (b); 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) Here, Plaintiff alleges that it is entitled to attorney fees pursuant to the written lease agreement it entered into with Defendant. The subject agreement provides:

“42. ATTORNEY FEES. In any action or proceeding arising out of this agreement, the prevailing party between Landlord and Tenant shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs from the non-prevailing Landlord or Tenant, except as provided in paragraph 36A.” (Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Mot., ¶ 42.)

As Plaintiff observes, Plaintiff has prevailed in the instant action, as a jury verdict has been entered against Defendant on 1/18/23. Moreover, Defendant has not opposed the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees under the subject agreement between the parties.

A prevailing party entitled to contractual attorney fees may recover “reasonable” attorney fees as determined by the Court. (Civ. Code § 1717, subd. (a).) In determining a reasonable fee award, the Court begins with the lodestar method of calculation, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.¿(Karton v. Ari Design & Construction, Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 744; PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095–1096.) Here, Plaintiff requests attorney fees in the total amount of $40,276.00 for the costs incurred during the litigation of this case, including time billed by three attorneys, one paralegal, and one legal assistant. (Pl.’s Supp. Br., 2:2–8.)

Upon review of the billing breakdown detailed in the Declaration of Steffanie Stelnick, the Court finds that the requested amount of attorney fees is reasonable, and Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of past attorney fees and litigation expenses as evidenced. Those fees are summarized as follows:

Staff Member	Hourly Rate	Time	Total
Steffanie Stelnick, Esq.	$550.00	20 hours	$11,000.00
Christina Hahn, Esq.	$395.00	56 hours	$22,120.00
Mitchell Steinberger, Esq.	$495.00	3.8 hours	$1,881.00
Paralegal Karina Dunbar	$250.00	20 hours[1]	$5,000.00
Legal Assistant Jocelyn Aguilar	$150.00	1.5 hours	$225.00
Total: $40,226.00

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion, and awards Plaintiff a total of $40,226.00 in attorney fees.

[1] The Court notes that while Plaintiff summarizes the total Paralegal time as 20.2 hours within the body of the supplemental brief (Pl.’s Sup. Br. 2:6), the detailed breakdown in the Stelnick Declaration accounts only for 20 hours worked by Ms. Dunbar. (Stelnick Decl. 3:8–17.)