Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2014-00013996-CU-CL-CTL, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 17, 2023

08/18/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Collections Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2014-00013996-CU-CL-CTL HERITAGE CUSTOM ESTATES ASSOCIATION VS. TUCKER [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: PLAINTIFF HERITAGE CUSTOM ESTATES ASSOCIATION'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES is GRANTED, in part.

Plaintiff Heritage Custom Estates Association ('Plaintiff') requests $13,430.00 in attorney's fees after this Court instructed Plaintiff to file a motion for reasonable attorney's fees after finding Defendant Kevin Tucker ('Defendant') guilty of contempt. Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff counsel's hourly rate of $395 is reasonable but disputes that the number of hours, 34, is reasonable.

'The matter of reasonableness of attorney's fees is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.' (Stokus v. Marsh (1990) 217 Cal. App. 3d 647, 656).

'In determining what constitutes a reasonable compensation for an attorney who has rendered services in connection with a legal proceeding, the court may and should consider 'the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and the skill employed in handling the litigation, the attention given, the success of the attorney's efforts, his learning, his age, and his experience in the particular type of work demanded ...; the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed.' [Citations]' (Id. at 657.) 'The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.' (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The Court finds that 6.1 hours of time sought was not reasonably incurred as to the drafting and preparation of an ex parte application that was taken off calendar. The Court fails to see why an ex parte regarding clarification of this Court's order would have been necessary, especially given that the application was taken off calendar and Plaintiff's counsel has not provided any explanation as to the purported need for the ex parte application. The Court finds the remainder of the hours spent was reasonable. Therefore, the motion is granted such that Plaintiff is awarded $11,020.50 in attorney's fees ($395 times 27.9 hours) against Defendant. The attorney's fees are to be paid within thirty (30) calendar days.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2976845  55