Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 20VECV00698, Date: 2022-07-25 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: 20VECV00698    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: T

Tentative ruling

Motion to Tax Costs:

1. Grant motion to tax costs as to travel costs (lodging and meals) for trial, Westlaw fees.  These are not statutorily authorized.  Moreover, while it may have been a matter of convenience to stay in the Van Nuys area for the trial, the court does not consider Orange County to be so distant as to have required it.

2. Deny motion as to court reporter fees.  Court reporter fees were agreed to be split but there is no evidence that the 50% paid would not be a recoverable cost.

3. Hear argument: Expert witness fees.

Motion for Attorney fees:

The court uses the lodestar method. 

Here, the court has determined that the number of hours claimed in the declarations by attorneys and paralegals was reasonable.  However, other billing for other non-professional staff is denied.  It was not unreasonable to have two attorneys at the depositions.

The court finds that the hourly billing rates claimed are reasonable based upon the experience and training of the attorneys and paralegals and are 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., supra, 34 Cal.3d at page 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, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at page 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.) 

The lodestar number, therefore, is as set forth in the moving papers, deleting the non-attorneys and non-paralegals. 

The court denies the request for a multiplier.  The court started out the Final Statement of Decision as follows:  “This case is relatively simple…OpenNode has tried to create a level of complexity that does not exist…”  The legal issues were not so complex as to justify a multiplier.  The nature of the litigation was not novel nor the issues to be decided by the court difficult. While it required competent counsel to try this case, it did not require extraordinary legal services or specialized knowledge or training. There was no inherent difficulty in prosecuting this case, which was for declaratory relief only and not damages. There is no evidence that this case was handled on a contingency.