Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV34280, Date: 2024-02-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV34280 Hearing Date: February 9, 2024 Dept: 47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE: February 9, 2024 TRIAL DATE: VACATED
CASE: Century Recovery LLC v. Walter C. Harris, et al.
CASE NO.: 22STCV24280 
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Century Recovery, LLC
RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 02/06/24
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an action for breach of contract that was filed on July 27, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the terms of a loan agreement by failing to make payments as required by its terms.
Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees and costs.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees and costs.
Entitlement to Fees
Civil Code section 1717 provides, in relevant part:
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.
(Civil Code § 1717(a), bold emphasis added.) “[I]t is established that fees, if recoverable at all – pursuant either to statute or parties’ agreement – are available for services at trial and on appeal.” (Morcos v. Board of Retirement (1990) 51 Cal.3d 924, 927 [emphasis in original].) Here, the Promissory Note that gives rise to this action, to which Defendant is a party, states:
If suit or action is instituted to collect, defend or enforce the Note and Guarantee, or any portion hereof or obligation of the Borrower or Guarantor related hereto, Borrower and Guarantor promise to pay Lender's reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in said proceedings, together with all other expenses Incurred by Lender in connection therewith, including interest on those amounts at the rate disclosed above from the date such expenses were incurred by Lender.
(Plaintiff’s Exh. 1. p.3.) “Lender” includes both the original lender, LoanMe, Inc., and any subsequent holder of the Note. (Id. p.1.) As the Court granted summary judgment on December 5, 2023, in favor of Plaintiff as a subsequent holder of the note, Plaintiff is entitled to collect reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to enforce the contract as a matter of law. (See December 5, 2023 Minute Order.)
Reasonableness of Fees
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.)
The prevailing party must file a noticed motion to claim contractual attorney fees as costs. (Civil Code § 1717(b)(1); see Russell v. Trans Pacific Group (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1717, 1728.) Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the Court and shall be an element of the costs of suit. (Civil Code § 1717(a); Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(c)(5)(B).) Reasonable attorney 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 requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,100, based on 44.8 hours of attorney time billed at $275 per hour, plus 13.9 hours of attorney time billed at $200 per hour. (Declaration of Assly Sayyar ISO Mot. ¶ 9.) Attorney Sayyar testifies to her own experience and the experience of her of-counsel attorney, and to the hourly rates of attorneys in her firm. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) Attorney Sayyar does not testify to the experience of her associate attorney who billed on this matter, but states that that work was done under her supervision. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff has also provided itemized timesheets showing each time entry, the work done, the proportional rate, and whether those fees have yet been invoiced to the client. (Plaintiff’s Exh. 4A.) From these records, the Court observes that Plaintiff’s counsel exercised billing judgment by assigning procedural and technical work to associates charging lower rates, while reserving strategic work, editing, and court appearances to more senior attorneys. (See Id.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the fees sought are fair and reasonable.
Costs
Plaintiff also requests an award of costs in the amount of $1,935.25. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a), Plaintiff, as the prevailing party in this action, is likewise entitled to recover costs. Plaintiff provided a memorandum of costs which was served by mail on December 13, 2023 with this motion, before entry of judgment (Memorandum of Costs.) Defendant did not serve or file notice of a motion to tax costs within the 15-day period set forth by California Rule of Court 3.1700(b). As Defendant has not objected to the cost memorandum, the Court finds the requested costs to be reasonable, and will award costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,935.25.
CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 9, 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.