Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV23543, Date: 2025-06-12 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 23STCV23543    Hearing Date: June 12, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

 

 

HEARING DATE:     June 12, 2025             TRIAL DATE: VACATED

                                                          

CASE:                         Nien Duy Nguyen v. Eric K. Delgadillo, et al.

 

CASE NO.:                 23STCV23543; consolidated with 23STCV26884           

 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

 

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Nien Duy Nguyen.

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of June 9, 2025.

 

CASE HISTORY:

·         09/28/23: Complaint filed.

·         11/02/23: Complaint filed [consolidated case]

·         03/19/24: Cross-Complaint filed [consolidated case]

·         04/30/24: 23STCV26884 consolidated into this case.

·         02/26/25: Interlocutory default judgment entered.

 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

           

            This is an action for partition and sale of a condominium.

 

Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.

           

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $35,595.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.

 

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 February 26, 2025, Plaintiff is expressly a prevailing party on this action as against the Delgadillo Defendants and is therefore entitled to recover fees pursuant to section 5975(c). (See February 26, 2025 Judgment.)

 

Reasonableness of Fees

 

            Plaintiff seeks an award of $35,595 in attorney’s fees actually incurred, plus an additional $1,250 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 119.4 hours across the consolidated action at an hourly rate of $350. (Declaration of Marcela Musilek ISO Mot. Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s counsel has provided a declaration attesting to the veracity of the billing records and to her skills and experience. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 15.) Plaintiff’s counsel also anticipates an additional $1,250 to prepare a reply brief and attend the hearing on this motion. (¶ 17.) Except for the anticipated hours, the Court therefore finds the fee request to be reasonable in light of the procedural history of this case. The Court will therefore grant an award of attorney’s fees actually billed in the amount of $35,595.00.

 

Costs

 

            Plaintiff also requests an award of costs in the amount of $3,309.71. Under Civil Code section 5975(c), Plaintiff, as the prevailing party in this action, is likewise entitled to recover costs. However, Plaintiff has not furnished the Court with an itemized list of costs nor any explanation of those costs with sufficient detail as to permit an evaluation of the reasonableness of those costs. The Court therefore declines to award costs at this time.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $35,595.

 

            Moving Party to give notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated:  June 12, 2025                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.

 



Website by Triangulus