Judge: Robert P. Dahlquist, Case: 37-2018-00021905-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  02:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert P Dahlquist

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00021905-CU-BC-NC TUCKER VS HERITAGE CUSTOM ESTATES ASSOCIATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Amended Motion, 12/12/2023

Defendant Heritage Custom Estates Association's motion for attorney fees (ROA # 415) is granted.

On May 3, 2018, plaintiff Kevin Tucker filed a complaint for enforcement of settlement agreement, equitable estoppel, breach of contract, vacate judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, violation of Civil Rights (11 USC § 1983), intentional interference with contractual relations and declaratory relief. ROA # 1.

On March 22, 2021, the court conducted a bench trial on all equitable claims and defenses. The court found that plaintiff Kevin Tucker was not entitled to the relief on his first (enforcement of settlement agreement), second (equitable estoppel) and seventh (declaratory relief) causes of action. ROA #280.

The court further found that plaintiff Teresa Tucker was not entitled to the relief requested in her first (declaratory), second (enforcement of settlement agreement) and third (unjust enrichment) causes of action. Finally, the court found that Teresa Tucker was entitled to be reimbursed by Kevin Tucker for the amounts withheld from Teresa Tucker's earnings on account of the earnings withholding order issued in the case of Heritage Custom Estates Association v. Kevin Tucker, Case No. IN053684.

On Oct. 15, 2021, the court granted defendant Heritage Custom Estates Association's motion for summary adjudication relating to the three remaining causes of action (third (breach of contract), fifth (violation of 11 USC § 1983) and sixth (intentional interference with contractual relations)).

As a result of the bench trial and the ruling on Heritage's motion for summary adjudication, all claims in plaintiff's complaint were adjudicated. The judgment was entered. ROA #346.

Plaintiff appealed the judgment. On August 25, 2023, the appellate court issued a remittitur affirming the court's judgment and awarding appellate costs to the defendant.

On October 4, 2023, defendant filed a memorandum of costs seeking to recover costs in the amount of $422.70 in addition to attorneys' fees. ROA # 414. On that same date, defendant filed a motion for attorneys' fees in the amount of $50,639. ROA # 420. Plaintiff opposes the motion as to the reasonableness of the number of hours spent on the appeal and this motion (126.20). ROA # 433.

Plaintiff concedes that defendant is the prevailing party and that defendant is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees. ROA # 433, 2:8-19.

'The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally 'begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067673 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  TUCKER VS HERITAGE CUSTOM ESTATES ASSOCIATION [IMAGED]  37-2018-00021905-CU-BC-NC 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.

The court has the discretion to determine the reasonableness of the amount of attorney's fees requested, considering the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel, the amount of time involved, and whether the amount requested is based on unnecessary or duplicative work. See Wysinger v Automobile Club of S. Cal. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 413, 430.

The court has relied on personal knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting the reasonable hourly rate. See Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.

The court has reviewed all of the information provided by the parties. The court finds that the amount of attorney fees requested by the moving party is a reasonable and proper amount. Therefore, the court will award attorney fees in the amount of $50,639 (128.20 hours at $395/hour).

The court invites defendant's counsel to submit a proposed amended judgment to reflect the awarded fees and recoverable costs.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 2:30 p.m. on Friday, January 19, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of January 19, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067673