Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC715897, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: BC715897    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Real Party in Interest Tanager View, LLC on behalf of defendant and cross-complainant 1410 Tanager, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff and cross-defendant James Samatas

Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs

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

DISCUSSION

Real party in interest Tanager View, LLC, on behalf of defendant and cross-complainant 1410 Tanager, LLC (“Tanager View”), moves the court for an order awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, to be paid by plaintiff and cross-defendant James Samatas (“Samatas”) in the amount of $384,074.50 pursuant to Civil Code sections 1717 and 5975.

“In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.”  (Civ. Code, §¿1717, subd. (a).)  Upon motion, the court shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of section 1717.  (Civ. Code, §¿1717, subd. (b)(1).)  Further, “[i]n an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.”  (Civ. Code, § 5975, subd. (c).)

First, the court finds that Tanager View is the prevailing party on the subject covenants, conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs”).  On August 26, 2019, the court granted Tanager View’s motion for summary judgment on Samatas’s Complaint in this action, which alleged one cause of action for breach of equitable servitudes following Samatas’s dismissal of the second cause of action for private nuisance.  On March 22, 2022, the court granted Tanager View’s motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for breach of equitable servitudes in its First Amended Cross-Complaint.  Thereafter, Tanager View dismissed its remaining second cause of action for private nuisance.  On July 22, 2022, the court entered judgment in favor of Tanager View and against Samatas on Samatas’s Complaint and Tanager View’s First Amended Cross-Complaint.  Thus, Tanager View is the prevailing party on the parties’ governing contract (i.e., the CC&Rs).   

The subject CC&Rs includes the following attorney’s fees provision:  “In any legal or equitable proceeding by Declarant or the Association, or both, for the enforcement, or to restrain a violation, of this Declaration or any provisions hereof, the losing party or parties shall pay the attorney’s or attorneys’ fees of the winning party or parties in such amount as may be fixed by the court in such proceedings.”[1]  (Mot., p. 10:20-24.)  The court finds that Tanager View is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to (1) this provision, and (2) Civil Code section 1717.  (Arias v. Katella Townhouse Homeowners Assn., Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 847, 852 [prevailing party entitled to recover attorney fees under the subject CC&Rs and Civil Code section 1717].)

Second, the court grants in part Tanager View’s motion and finds that it is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees in the modified amount of $332,850.

“[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.) 

Tanager View requests an award of attorney’s fees based on the work performed by five attorneys at the following hourly rates: (1) Benjamin Reznik ($975 hourly rate in 2018, and $1,050 hourly rate in 2019); (2) Dan Sedor ($745 hourly rate in 2018; $775 hourly rate in 2019; $795 hourly rate in 2020; $575 hourly rate in 2021; and $650 hourly rate in 2022); (3) Daniel Freedman ($475 hourly rate in 2018; $474-$525 hourly rate in 2019; $525-$625 hourly rate in 2020; $625-$650 hourly rate in 2021; and $675 hourly rate in 2022); (4) Matthew Hinks ($775 hourly rate in 2019, and $775-$825 hourly rate in 2020); and (5) Remi Salter ($325 hourly rate in 2019, and $350 hourly rate in 2019).  (Sedor Decl., ¶ 15.)  Tanager View has submitted the biographies of counsel that attest to their qualifications and experience in support of its motion for attorney’s fees at the requested hourly rates.  (Sedor Decl., Exs. 4-8.)

Tanager View’s legal team billed the following hours: (1) 389.2 hours for work performed by Dan Sedor; (2) 138.4 hours for work performed by Daniel Freedman; (3) 19.5 hours for work performed by Remi Salter; (4) 9.9 hours for work performed by Matthew Hinks; (5) 1.9 hours for work performed by Benjamin Reznik; and (6) 5.3 hours for work performed by other support staff.  (Sedor Decl., ¶ 26; Sedor Decl., Ex. 3.)  The verified time entries establish that Tanager View was billed $384,074.50 in attorney’s fees.  (Sedor Decl., ¶¶ 12-14.)  In opposition, Samatas challenges various entries as unreasonable for block-billing, excessive internal conferencing, and excessive in light of the low level of complexity of this action.  (Mehta Decl., ¶ 3; Mehta Decl., Ex. F.)

The court finds that the hours expended by Tanager View’s attorneys, as verified by counsel, are reasonable.  (Sedor Decl., ¶ 12, Sedor Decl., Ex. 3.)  However, the court finds that the 5.3 hours billed by support staff (i.e., the reference librarians) for additional research relating to motion practice were not reasonably incurred and therefore excludes those hours.

The court finds that the hourly rates charged and requested by Tanager View’s attorneys are not reasonable as applied to this action.  After considering the experience and qualifications of counsel, the court finds that the following hourly rates are reasonable: (1) $975 for work performed by Reznik; (2) $650 for work performed by Sedor; (3) $475 for work performed by Freedman; (4) $600 for work performed by Hinks; and (5) $325 for work performed by Salter.

The court therefore finds that Tanager View has established a lodestar figure of $332,850 ((389.2 hours x Sedor’s hourly rate of $650) + (138.4 hours x Freedman’s hourly rate of $475) + (19.5 hours x Salter’s hourly rate of $325) + (9.9 hours x Hink’s hourly rate of $600) + (1.9 hours x Reznik’s hourly rate of $975)) and is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees in that amount.  (Sedor Decl., ¶ 26 [chart of total hours billed by five attorneys].)

ORDER

The court grants real party in interest Tanager View, LLC, on behalf of defendant and cross-complainant 1410 Tanager View, LLC’s amended motion for award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

The court orders that real party in interest Tanager View, LLC, on behalf of defendant and cross-complainant 1410 Tanager View, LLC, shall recover a total of $332,850 from plaintiff and cross-defendant James Samatas in attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.

The court orders real party in interest Tanager View, LLC, on behalf of defendant and cross-complainant 1410 Tanager View, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  March 21, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court