Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV04188, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04188    Hearing Date: April 2, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff Brenda Broussard filed a Complaint against Defendant Michael J. Anderegg. The Complaint asserted seven causes of action against Defendant. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant fraudulently induced her to wire him $700,000 to invest on her behalf. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant did not invest the funds as represented and that he did not repay her when she demanded her money back.

Shortly after Defendant was served with the Complaint, his attorney, Donald Hensel contacted Plaintiff’s counsel and began negotiations to settle her claims. On May 6, 2024, an agreement as to terms of settlement was reached and a written Settlement was signed by both parties. However, Defendant failed to comply with the terms of the settlement. On, July 10, 2024, Plaintiff brought a Motion to Enforce Settlement. This Court granted that motion on October 14, 2024.

Plaintiff now moves under CCP § 1717 for an award of $3,678 in attorney fees. This motion is unopposed.

Discussion

Civil Code section 1717(a), provides, “In 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.”

“[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]); (see Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 818 [applying the lodestar method to determine attorneys’ fees in Song-Beverly action].)

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel, Jill Glennon, requests a lodestar total of $2,524.50 for her work on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement, as well as $892.50 for her work on this Motion for Attorney Fees. (Glennon Decl. ¶ 13.) Additionally, she requests $261.00 for work done by her paralegals. (Id. ¶ 14.) This puts the total requested attorney fees at $3,678.00. (Ibid.)

Settlement Agreement

On May 6, 2024, the parties settled this case. (Glennon Decl. ¶ 7.) The Settlement Agreement provides that the Prevailing Party in any suit brought to enforce the Settlement Agreement should be entitled to recover as an element of costs of suit and no damages, their reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Broussard Decl, Ex. A, ¶ 5.12.) Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this case. On October 14, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff Broussard’s Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement and entered judgment in the amount of $700,000 against Mr. Anderegg. (Judgment Pursuant to Settlement p. 1:11-12.) Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her reasonable attorney fees.

The Hourly Rate of Counsel

Courts repeatedly have stated that the trial court is in the best position to value the services rendered by the attorneys in his or her courtroom, and this includes the determination of the hourly rate that will be used in the lodestar calculus. ((569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 436-437.)

Here, Ms. Glennon states that her hourly rate is $595.00. (Glennon Decl. ¶ 13.) She supports this rate by stating that she graduated Georgetown Law in 1999 and has worked in civil litigation for eighteen years. (Ibid.) She also states that these rates are typical of someone of her experience in this field. (Ibid.) Ms. Glennon also states that the hourly rate of her paralegals is $145.00. (Id. ¶ 14.)

The Court finds that the hourly rates requested by Plaintiff’s counsel are reasonable and commensurate with rates charged by attorneys with comparable skill and experience.

Reasonableness of the Requested Hours 

            The Attorney Fees clause in the settlement agreement only applies if a suit is brought to enforce the agreement. (Broussard Decl, Ex. A, ¶ 5.12.) Therefore, Plaintiff can only recover for attorney fees related to the enforcement of the settlement agreement and this motion for attorney fees. Ms. Glennon states that she spent 6.1 hours drafting the motion to enforce the settlement agreement, 1.5 hours on this motion, 0.2 hours on the notice of non-oposition, and she anticipates spending 0.7 hours attending the hearing on this motion. (Glennon Decl. ¶ 13.) This totals 8.5 hours, at $595.00 per hour which exceeds the amount requested. Additionally, Ms. Glennon employed two paralegals who billed 1.8 hours on this motion. (Id. ¶ 14.) The Court finds the hours and fees requested to be reasonable given the work done on the two motions.

Conclusion

            Given that both the rates and hours requested are reasonable, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $3,678.00 in attorney fees.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

DATED:  April 1, 2025                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court