Judge Shirley K. Watkins, Case 19VECV00164 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 19VECV00164, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 19VECV00164 Hearing Date: August 22, 2022 Dept: T

Tentative ruling on Motion for Attorney Fees – GRANT

The 1^st COA of the cross-complaint seeks attorney fees according to paragraph 18 of the Easement. Had Space Holdings prevailed on the 1st COA, there is no doubt it would have sought attorney fees. While the Final Statement of Decision states there is no prevailing party, the court is persuaded by JKM’s arguments that when Space Holdings did not prevail on the 1^st COA, then JKM did prevail and is entitled to attorney fees.

The court uses the lodestar method. Here, the court has determined that the number of hours claimed in the declaration by attorney David Lake for work performed for cross-defendant JKM was reasonable. The court finds that the hourly billing rate claimed is reasonable based upon the experience and training of the attorney and is within the range of fees charged for similar services in the Los Angeles area. As has been said...“[t]he experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his [or her] court.” See, e.g., Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819, 832; see also, Press v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 311, 322 (ultimately, the trial judge has discretion to determine the value of professional services rendered in his [or her] court ….); Wysinger v. Automobile Club of Southern California (1997) 157 Cal.App.4th 413, 430 (the amount of fees is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial judge is in the best position to evaluate the quality of legal services at trial.)

Attorney fees are awarded in favor of cross-defendant JKM Real Estate Holdings, LLC and against cross-complainant Space Holdings, LLC in the sum of $81,705.

On the alternative grounds of fees for the unreasonable denial of Request for Admissions, the court cannot say that the requests were all unreasonable, nor that the fees incurred were solely due to the failure to admit. Moreover, while there may not have been documentary evidence of each denial, there was oral testimony on all of the issues. The court denies attorney fees under CCP section 2033.420.