Judge Robert B. Broadbelt, Case Number: 22STCV00532, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV00532, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

Plaintiff Tennia Taylor (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs in her favor and against defendant CitiGuard, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the total amount of $59,258, consisting of attorney’s fees in the amount of $59,138 and costs in the amount of $120.[1]

First, the court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees from Defendant that she incurred as a result of Defendant’s breach of the parties’ arbitration agreement.

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction against a drafting party that materially breaches an arbitration agreement pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1281.97 or subdivision (a) of Section 1281.98, by ordering the drafting party to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, incurred by the employee or consumer as a result of the material breach.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.99, subd. (a).)

On November 17, 2023, the court issued an order (1) finding that Plaintiff met her burden to establish that Defendant materially breached the parties’ arbitration agreement by failing to pay the fees required to commence arbitration, such that Defendant was in default of the arbitration agreement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97, and (2) granting Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the order compelling the parties to submit to binding arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.97. (Nov. 17, 2023 Order, pp. 3:6-9, 4:19-24.) Thus, the court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant attorney’s fees and costs that she incurred as a result of Defendant’s breach. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.99, subd. (a).)

Second, the court finds that Plaintiff may recover only the attorney’s fees and costs that she has established that she incurred as a result of Defendant’s breach, and therefore may not recover all attorney’s fees and costs that she incurred to commence and prosecute this action.

As set forth above, the court shall impose a monetary sanction against a drafting party that has materially breached the arbitration agreement by ordering the drafting party to pay “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, incurred by the employee or consumer as a result of the material breach.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.99, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) The court has reviewed the billing statements submitted by Plaintiff’s attorneys, and finds that Plaintiff has not established, based on adequate argument, analysis, and evidence, that Plaintiff’s incurring attorney’s fees and costs to oppose the motion to compel arbitration were incurred as a result of Defendant’s breach of the arbitration agreement. (Appendix, Ex. 1, Roven Timesheet, p. 1; Appendix, Ex. 2, Crippen Timesheet, p. 1; Appendix, Ex. 3, Gomez Timesheet, p. 1.)

Third, the court finds that Plaintiff has established a lodestar figure, as to the attorney’s fees that she incurred as a result of Defendant’s breach of the arbitration agreement, of $8,685.

“[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. . . . .¿ The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.¿ The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.”¿ (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (internal citations omitted).)¿ “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.”¿ (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.)¿¿

Plaintiff has submitted the declarations of attorneys Jonathan Roven, Britanie Crippen, and Annelyse Gomez, in which they have attested to their qualifications, education, and experience. (Roven Decl., ¶¶ 2-20; Crippen Decl., ¶¶ 2-9; Gomez Decl., ¶¶ 2-8.) The court finds that (1) a reasonable hourly rate for attorney Roven is $600, (2) a reasonable hourly rate for attorney Crippen is $350, and (3) a reasonable hourly rate for attorney Gomez is $325. (Ibid.)

The court further finds that (1) attorney Roven has reasonably expended 10.5 hours as a result of Defendant’s breach of the arbitration agreement, consisting of the time expended (i) to draft the motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration and supporting documents (4.5 hours), (ii) to discuss the arbitration payment with counsel (0.5 hours), and (iii) to prepare the pending fee motion (5.5 hours); (2) attorney Crippen has reasonably expended 5.7 hours as a result of Defendant’s breach of the arbitration agreement, consisting of the time expended (i) to review correspondence regarding the arbitration payment (0.2 hours), (ii) to review documents filed in connection with the motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration (3 hours), and (iii) to prepare the pending fee motion (2 hours); and (3) attorney Gomez has reasonably expended 1.20 hours as a result of Defendant’s breach of the arbitration agreement, consisting of the time expended (i) to draft the motion to vacate the order compelling arbitration (1 hour), and (ii) to review the email discussion with opposing counsel regarding the payment of arbitration fees (0.2 hours). (Appendix, Ex. 1, Roven Timesheet, pp. 1-2; Appendix, Ex. 2, Crippen Timesheet, pp. 1-2; Appendix, Ex. 3, Gomez Timesheet, p. 1.)

The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has established a lodestar figure of $8,685 ((10.5 hours x Roven’s $600 hourly rate) + (5.7 hours x attorney Crippen’s $350 hourly rate) + (1.20 hours x attorney Gomez’s $325 hourly rate)). The court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that the court should award a 1.5 multiplier. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 [setting forth factors that justify a multiplier].)

The court finds that Plaintiff has not supported her request for costs in the amount of $120 (e.g., by stating that costs were incurred in that amount in the declaration of counsel) and therefore denies Plaintiff’s request for costs.

The court grants in part plaintiff Tennia Taylor’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs as follows.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.99, the court orders that plaintiff Tennia Taylor shall recover from defendant CitiGuard, Inc. attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,685.

[1] The court notes that, in reply, Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees in the total amount of $108,255. (Reply, p. 10:17-20.) However, that is not the relief that Plaintiff requested in her notice of motion. (First Amended Notice of Mot., p. 2:6-7 [requesting $59,138 in attorney’s fees and $120 in costs].) The court does not consider the request for additional attorney’s fees made in reply.

tennia taylor ; Plaintiff, vs. memorial hospital of gardena , et al.; Defendants.	Case No.:	22STCV00532

	Hearing Date:	November 6, 2024

	Time:	8:30 a.m.

	[tentative] Order RE: plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs (code civ. proc., § 1281.99(a))