Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV38255, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38255    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 2, 2021, the Court sustained demurrers filed by Litton Loan Servicing LP; Ocwen Financial Services, Inc.; PHH Mortgage Corporation, individually and as successor by merger to Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (erroneously sued as PHH Mortgage Services and Ocwen Loan Services, LLC); and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-FR1 (erroneously sued as Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-FR1) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On August 2, 2021, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs Niki Alexander Shetty and Adina Zaharescu.

On August 31, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for attorney fees.

Plaintiffs appealed.  On January 26, 2023, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment and awarded Defendants their costs on appeal.  Remittitur issued on April 4, 2023.

On April 10, 2023, Defendants filed a timely memorandum of costs on appeal.  (See California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(c)(1).)  Defendants also filed a motion for attorney fees.  Plaintiffs did not file a motion to tax costs or an opposition to the motion for attorney fees.

California courts apply the “lodestar” approach to determine what fees are reasonable.  (See, e.g., Holguin v. DISH Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1332.)  This inquiry “begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)  From there, 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.”  (Ibid.)  Relevant factors include “(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, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.”  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)  The party seeking fees has the burden of documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.  (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784.)

Defendants seek $15,970.00 in attorney fees for 56.1 hours billed on appeal, plus an additional $1,200.00 for 4.0 hours more anticipated with this motion.  (Cooper Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)  Based on the number of hours worked and the total fees, Defendants’ counsel billed at a blended rate of $284.67.  (Cooper Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendants provide copies of the billing invoices.  (Cooper Decl., Ex. 2.)  The amount of fees is reasonable for the appeal.  However, because Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion, the Court will not award additional time for “analyzing Plaintiffs’ opposition, drafting the reply, preparing for and attending the hearing, and preparing an order and judgment.”  (Cooper Decl. ¶ 6.)  Defendants are therefore entitled to $15,970.00 in attorney fees.

Defendants’ verified memorandum of costs of appeal seeks $514.20 for filing fees and service of documents.  This amount is reasonable and allowable.

As the Court noted in its August 31, 2021 order, Section 9 of the Deed of Trust specifically states that any attorney fees or costs incurred “shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument,” and they “shall be payable, with such interest, upon notice from Lender to Borrower requesting payment.”

The motion for attorney fees is GRANTED IN PART.  The award of $15,970.00 in attorney fees and $514.20 in costs is the additional debt of Plaintiffs secured by the Deed of Trust.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 26th day of October 2023