Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22VECV01348, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01348    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff Tamim, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Complaint – Unlawful Detainer” in this action against Defendants Eugene Chorny and Irina Ermakova (jointly, “Defendants”).

On April 3, 2024, the Court entered a “Judgment - Unlawful Detainer Amended” in this action (herein, the “Amended Judgment”). The Amended Judgment provides, inter alia, that the case was tried on March 13, 2024, and that judgment is for Plaintiff and against Defendants. The Amended Judgment further provides that the party entitled to possession of the premises located at 13300 Burbank Boulevard Sherman Oaks, California 91401 is Plaintiff. (Amended Judgment, ¶ 4.) In addition, the Amended Judgment provides that Defendants must pay Plaintiff past-due rent in the amount of $21,480.75 and holdover damages in the amount of $142,491.44, for a total judgment of $163,972.19. (Amended Judgment, ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff now moves for an order determining Plaintiff to be the prevailing party in this action, and for an award of attorney fees to be paid by Defendants to Plaintiff in the amount of $19,050.00. The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

A.    Entitlement to Attorney’s Fees

Pursuant to Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a), “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A) provides that attorney’s fees, when authorized by contract, are allowable as costs.

Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees here. As set forth above, on April 3, 2024, the Court entered the Amended Judgment in this action, which provides, inter alia, that judgment is for Plaintiff and against Defendants. (Amended Judgment, ¶ 3.)

In his declaration in support of the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[a]ttached hereto as Exhibit ‘1’ is a true and correct copy of the subject lease agreement…” (herein, the “Lease”). (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff points to paragraph 31 of the Lease, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

“31.     Attorneys’ Fees. If any Party or Broker brings an action or proceeding involving the Premises whether founded in tort, contract or equity, or to declare rights hereunder, the Prevailing Party (as hereafter defined) in any such proceeding, action, or appeal thereon, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Such fees may be awarded in the same suit or recovered in a separate suit, whether or not such action or proceeding is pursued to decision or judgment. The term “Prevailing Party” shall include, without limitation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relief sought, as the case may be, whether by compromise, settlement, judgment, or the abandonment by the other Party or Broker of its claim or defense. The attorneys’ fees award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be such as to fully reimburse all attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred…” (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, ¶ 31.)

Plaintiff asserts that here, although it is “not a signatory to the lease (insofar as the lease was entered into between Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest and Defendants), Plaintiff is nonetheless…entitled to an award of fees” under paragraph 15.2 of the subject lease. (Mot. at p. 4:2-5.)  Paragraph 15.2 of the Lease provides, inter alia, that “[a]ny buyer or transferee of Lessor’s interest in this Lease shall be deemed to have assumed Lessor’s obligation hereunder…” (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1, ¶ 15.2)

            In addition, the Court notes that the March 13, 2024 minute order in this matter provides, inter alia, “Plaintiff Tamim, LLC’s exhibits 1 (Grant Deed Recorded on 9/2/21 at 8:00a.m.), 2 (Tenant Lease dated 7/1/05), 3 (Copy of Checks, 8 pages), 4 (Annuel Secured Property Tax Bill), 5 (Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit), and 6 (Proof of Service of Certified Mail Receipt) are admitted in evidence.” The March 13, 2024 minute order further provides that “Plaintiff, through the testimony of witness Jonathan Cohen, a member of Plaintiff, provided evidence that Plaintiff is the owner of the premises located at 13300 Burbank Blvd, Sherman Oaks, CA (the ‘Premises’) (Ex. 1), and that it is the successor in interest to the original landlord under the lease with Defendants for the Premises (the ‘Lease’) (Ex. 2).” Further, Defendants do not oppose the instant motion. Thus, they do not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees under the Lease.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated its entitlement to attorney’s fees here.

B.    The Hourly Rate of Counsel and the Reasonableness of the Requested Fees

“[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. … The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” ((PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 [internal citations omitted].)

“[T]he court’s discretion in awarding attorney fees is … to be exercised so as to fully compensate counsel for the prevailing party for services reasonably provided to his or her client.” ((Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.) The trial court may reduce the award where the fee request appears unreasonably inflated, such as where the attorneys’ efforts are unorganized or duplicative. ((Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635, fn. 21.) “[T]he verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.” (Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of California State Univ., supra, at p. 396.)

Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested hourly billing rate is $300.00 per hour. (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendants do not oppose the motion and thus do not challenge Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested hourly rate. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable.

In his supporting declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]he total hours I have devoted to this case thus far is 58.4. At my hourly rate of $300.00 per hour in this case, this sum is equal to $17,250.00.” (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 6.)[1] Plaintiff’s counsel also states that “[a]ttached hereto as Exhibit ‘2’ are true and correct copies of my billing statements with description of my tasks and hours I expended in connection with my representation of Plaintiff in this action.” (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 5.) As Defendants do not oppose the instant motion, they do not assert that any of Plaintiff’s billing entries are unreasonable. The Court finds that the requested $17,250.00 is reasonable.

Plaintiff’s counsel also states that “I have spent four hours preparing this motion, anticipate spending one hour replying to Plaintiff’s opposition and anticipate spending an additional one hour at the hearing of this motion. Accordingly, an additional $1,800.00 is requested in connection with this motion.” (Isaacs Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendants do not oppose the instant motion, and Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of the motion. Thus, the Court deducts $300.00 from the total amount requested (1 hour x $300/hr.)

///

///

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is granted. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $18,750.00.  

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling. 

DATED:  June 28, 2024                                 ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court