Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: BC620507, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC620507 Hearing Date: October 23, 2023 Dept: 39
Hannah Vu, M.D. v.
Hung-Chih Yang, et al.
Case No. BC620507
Motions for
Attorney’s Fees
The Court posts
this tentative order on October 18, 2023, in advance of the hearing on October
23, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. The Court provides
notice that any party who does not appear shall waive the right to be heard on
this motion and shall submit to entry of this tentative order or any amended tentative
order.
Plaintiff Hannah Vu (“Plaintiff”)
filed this action against Hung-Chih Yang, as an individual and as trustee of
the Hung-Chih Yang and Ting-Lin Yang Revocable Trust, dated 05-30-2009
(“Defendant”). Plaintiff rented Defendant’s
commercial property for her medical practice until the City of El Monte (the
“City”) issued an administrative citation because there was no certificate of
occupancy for the building. Plaintiff’s operative complaint asserts the
following causes of action against Defendant: (1) Breach of contract, (2) Money
had and received, (3) Intentional Misrepresentation, (4) Negligent
misrepresentation, (5) Unjust enrichment, (6) Declaratory relief, (7) Breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (8) Fraudulent
concealment. Defendant filed a
cross-complaint asserting a cause of action for breach of contract. The case proceeded as a bench trial, and
Plaintiff was the prevailing party. The
Court previously ordered Defendant to pay $183,636.50 in attorney’s fees. Defendant appealed this Court’s decision, and
the District Court of Appeal affirmed.
Plaintiff
has filed two motions for attorney’s fees.
First, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorneys’ and costs stemming from the appeal
of the judgment at trial. Second,
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorneys’ fees and costs related to certain collection
efforts. These motions are predicated
upon the parties’ lease contract, which states: “In any action or proceeding
arising out of this agreement, the prevailing party between Landlord and Tenant
shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs from the non-prevailing
Landlord or Tenant, except as provided in Paragraph 36A.” (See Complaint, Exh. A, ¶ 42.) Paragraph 36A deals with mediation, which is
not at issue in this case. (See
Complaint, Exh. A, ¶ 36(A).)
The
determination of reasonable amount of attorney fees is within the sound
discretion of trial courts. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th
1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127, 1134.) The burden is on the party seeking
attorney fees to prove reasonableness of the fees. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County
of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 603, 615.) The Court has broad discretion in determining
the amount of a reasonable attorney’s fee award which will not be overturned
absent a “manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or
necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence.” (Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008)
167 Cal. App. 4th 1379, 1393-94.) The Court need not explain its
calculation of the amount of attorney’s fees awarded in detail; identifying the
factors considered in arriving at the amount will suffice. (Ventura v. ABM
Industries Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-75.)
A. Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Regarding
the Appeal
Plaintiff’s
counsel seeks attorney’s fees and costs for the appeal in the amounts of
$37,405.50 and $815.70, respectively, stemming from the appeal in this matter. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion because this
was “an action or proceeding” arising out of the agreement, and Plaintiff
prevailed on appeal. The Court finds that
the rates of Eve Brackmann, Don Hamman, and C. Athena Roussous are reasonable,
though the rates of the non-legal staff are slightly high. The Court finds that the hours billed are
reasonable, though there are some slight inefficiencies. Also, Plaintiff’s counsel estimated $4,250 in
fees to prepare a reply brief (even though none was filed) and prepare for and
attend the hearing on this motion. To
account for these issues, the Court imposes a reduction of 15% to account for
these issues and awards $31,794.68 in attorney’s fees. The Court approves costs on appeal in the amount
of $815.70. Therefore, the Court orders
Defendants to pay $32,610.38.
B. Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Regarding Collection Efforts
Second,
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks attorney’s fees and costs related to collection
efforts in the amount of $17,836.50 and $1,402.47, respectively, based upon the
following: (1) Fees and costs of $7,234.95 stemming from the ex parte
application to enforce liability payment on deposit in lieu of bond; (2) “[T]otal
collection efforts by the two firms and their personnel [of] $13,836.50 in fees
and $1,402.47 in costs;” and (3) Fees relating to the instant motion of $4,000. Plaintiff is entitled to seek these attorney’s
fees and costs, per Code of Civil Procedure sections 1033.5(a)(10)(A) and
685.040. The Court strikes the request
for $4,000 in attorney’s fees, because Plaintiff filed no reply brief, and the
Court awarded attorney’s fees for the instant hearing in connection with the first
motion. The Court grants the motion in
all other respects and orders Defendants to pay $15,238.97.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon the
foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court grants Plaintiff’s motions
for attorneys’ fees.
2. The Court orders Defendants to pay an
additional $47,849.35 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
3. Plaintiff may lodge an amended judgment
if necessary to reflect the partial satisfaction of judgment and these
additional attorneys’ fees and costs.
4. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice
and file proof of such with the Court.