Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: BC655251, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC655251    Hearing Date: February 13, 2024    Dept: 39

Carmen Fuentes, et al. v. Jonathan Betuel, et al.

Case No. BC655251

Motions for Attorneys’ Fees

            Plaintiff Carmen Fuentes (“Fuentes”) and her two catering companies (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Jonathan Betuel and Rhea Espino (collectively, “Defendants”) stemming from Defendants’ contemplated purchase of businesses from Fuentes and her husband.  The court (Feffer, J.) granted summary judgment and awarded attorneys’ fees to Defendants under Civil Code section 1717.  The District Court of Appeal affirmed that decision but remanded for this court to resolve certain discrepancies.  Defendants also filed a motion for their attorneys’ fees on appeal.

            A.        Attorneys’ Fees Following Remand

            Judge Feffer awarded Defendants attorneys’ fees in the amount of $113,745.  The District Court of Appeal noted two discrepancies.  First, the Court noted that the award should have been $112,420, based upon the additions and subtractions contained in Judge Feffer’s orders.  Second, the Court noted: “[T]he settled statement does appear to support plaintiffs’ view of the trial court’s calculations,” specifically, that there was a double recovery of attorneys’ fees for two discovery motions.  The Court held: “Because the settled statement suggests the attorney fee award is inconsistent with the trial court’s stated rationale for the award—by at least $10,200, not an insignificant amount—remand will permit the trial court to make any warranted modification to the award and to support its calculation with adequate clarity.”  The Court agrees that the record does not support Judge Feffer’s award of attorneys’ fees, and the Court finds no good cause to increase the amount for “time and/or rate for any of the work done,” which the Court of Appeal contemplated may explain the discrepancy.  Therefore, the Court corrects the award of attorneys’ fees from $113,745 to $102,220. 

            B.        Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal

            Defendants seek additional attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,210 for the appeal in this case.  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 determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally ‘begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the 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.)  In setting the hourly rate for an attorney fees award, courts are entitled to consider the rate of “‘fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.’”  (Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc. (1993) 13 Cal. App. 4th 976, 997 [affirming rate of $450 per hour], overruled on other grounds by Lakin v. Watkins Associated Indus. (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 644, 664.)  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.) 

The Court finds that the requested hours (60.7 hours) is reasonable and commensurate with what the Court would expect for an appeal.  The Court finds that the requested billing rate ($300) is reasonable under the circumstances.  The Court notes that this motion is not opposed.  Therefore, the Court grants the motion and orders Plaintiffs to pay additional attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,210 to Defendants. 

            C.        Conclusion and Order

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders Plaintiffs to pay Defendants, by and through counsel, a total of $120,430 in attorneys’ fees within ninety (90) days.  Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.