Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 21STCV19929, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV19929, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV19929 Hearing Date: January 8, 2024 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: January 8, 2024 JUDGMENT: June 2, 2023

CASE: Oak Hills IV Condominium Association v. Tao Li, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV19929

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Oak Hills IV Condominium Association

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants Miaoling He and Tao Li

CASE HISTORY:

· 05/26/21: Complaint filed.

· 06/02/23: Judgment entered.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This was an action for breach of the Declaration of Restrictions. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants owned a condominium subject to the Declaration of Restrictions which Defendants used as a rental property. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants breached the declaration by allowing a leaking air conditioning unit to remain installed on the balcony of Defendants’ unit. The Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on June 2, 2023.

Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party in this action.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $20,207 in attorney’s fees plus $685.37 in costs.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party in this action.

Entitlement to Fees

Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party in an action to enforce a declaration of covenants and restrictions. Under Civil Code section 5975(c), the prevailing party in an action to enforce a declaration of covenants and restrictions “shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” (Civ. Code § 5975(c).) Pursuant to the judgment entered June 2, 2023, Plaintiff is expressly a prevailing party on this action, and is therefore entitled to recover fees pursuant to section 5975(c). (See June 2, 2023 Judgment.)

Reasonableness of Fees

Plaintiff seeks an award of $30,310.50 in attorney’s fees actually incurred, plus an additional $1,625 in anticipated fees for a reply brief and attending the hearing on this motion.

Reasonable attorney’s fees are allowable costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc § 1033.5(a)(10), (c)(5)(B).) In actions that are based 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… shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civil Code § 1717(a) [emphasis added].) A recovery of attorney’s fees is authorized even in noncontractual or tort actions if the contractual provision for fee recovery is worded broadly enough. (See Code Civ. Proc § 10211; Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 984, 993 [agreement to award fees based on outcome of “any dispute” encompasses all claims, “whether in contract, tort or otherwise]; Lockton v. O'Rourke (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1076; Lerner v. Ward (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 155, 160.)

Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the Court and shall be an element of the costs of suit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(5)(B).) Reasonable attorney’s fees are ordinarily determined by the Court pursuant to the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. (See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096; Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004 [“California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys' fee award.”].) “[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….” (Ibid.) In setting the hourly rate for a fee award, courts are entitled to consider the “fees customarily charged by that attorney and others in the community for similar work.” (Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys., 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’s fees to prove the 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, 1393-1394.) 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 Indus. Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 258, 274-275.)

Here, Plaintiff bases the fee request on the billing records of Plaintiff’s counsel, which show a total of 88.9 hours at an hourly rate of $325 for time entries preceding August 1, 2022, and $345 for time entries billed thereafter. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 9.) Plaintiff’s counsel has provided a declaration attesting to the veracity of the billing records. (Declaration of Alisa E. Sandoval ISO Mot. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel also anticipates an additional five hours at $345 per hour to prepare a reply brief and attend the hearing on this motion. (¶ 7.)

Defendants argue in opposition that the fees incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel were not reasonable because this action was precipitated and exacerbated by Plaintiff. This argument is not appropriate on a post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees. Defendants’ liability and the impact of Plaintiff’s conduct on its own position was the subject of the trial in this case. That said, it is true that Plaintiff was only partially successful in this case in that it sought exorbitant fines that were not justified under Plaintiff’s own rules, resulting in an award to Plaintiff of only $300 in fines based on a finding that Plaintiff failed to act reasonably. (See May 9, 2023 Minute Order.) Because Plaintiff devoted substantial time during the litigation, including at trial, in its efforts to recover these disallowed fines, the Court finds that one-third of the time spent by Plaintiff’s counsel should be excluded from the time reasonably spent on litigating this action. The Court also excludes anticipated hours because there is no evidentiary basis for them. Accordingly, the Court grants an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,207.

Costs

Plaintiff also requests an award of costs in the amount of $685.37. Under Civil Code section 5975(c), Plaintiff, as the prevailing party in this action, is likewise entitled to recover costs. Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records also provide an itemized list of costs. (Exh. 9.) As Defendant has not objected to the request for costs, the Court finds the requested costs to be reasonable, and will award costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $685.37.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $20,207 in attorney’s fees plus $685.37 in costs.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2024 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.