Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00601, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00601    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: R

PLAINTIFF VILLAGE WALK I CORPORATION’S MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER DECLARING PLAINTIFF THE PREVAILING PARTY AND AWARDING PLAINTIFF ITS ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF VILLAGE WALK I CORPORATION’S MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER DECLARING PLAINTIFF THE PREVAILING PARTY AND AWARDING PLAINTIFF ITS ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS is GRANTED, in the reduced amount of $18,808.72.

Background

This case involves a Homeowners Association (“HOA”). PLAINTIFF, VILLAGE WALK I CORPORATION (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendants XIAOJING CAI and XINGIANG GUO (collectively, “Defendants”): Defendants own a condominium unit, which is subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, and Reservation of Easements and certain bylaws (collectively, “Governing Documents”). However, Defendants violated the Governing Documents by modifying the exterior of the condominium building without Plaintiff’s approval.

On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants asserting the following causes of actions:

1. Violation Of Restrictions (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 336(B));

2. Continuing Nuisance; And

3. Declaratory Relief

On November 22, 2021, default was entered against Defendants.

On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant Xinqiang Guo.

On May 9, 2022, a ‘Stipulation for Entry of Judgment’ was filed.

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion For Order Declaring Plaintiff The Prevailing Party And Awarding Plaintiff Its Attorneys’ Fees And Costs (“Motion”).

No timely Opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

Plaintiff brings forth the motion pursuant to California Civil Code, section 5975(c).

Civil Code section 5975(c), which is part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act governing relations between homeowner associations and their members, provides that a prevailing party in an action to enforce the governing documents between the parties “shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” (Civ. Code § 5975(c).) Because the Act defines “governing documents” as including CC&Rs, this section applies to actions to enforce CC&Rs. (Civ. Code, § 4150.) Therefore, under this code section, once a court resolves the threshold issue of the prevailing party, a court has no discretion to deny reasonable attorney’s fees. (Almanor v. Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761, 776.)

Discussion

Whether Plaintiff is the Prevailing Party

The test for determining a prevailing party is “whether a party prevailed on a practical level by achieving its main litigation objectives.” (Almanor, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.) For purposes of determining a prevailing party, the analysis is the same under both Civil Code sections 1717 and 5975(c). (Id. at 773-774 [discussing how the determination is analogous under both statutes].) Accordingly, a court must “compare the relief awarded on the… claims with the parties’ demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources.” (Hsu v. Abbarra (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 876.)  

Here, Plaintiffs have been the only party to achieve the main litigation objective by compelling Defendant to comply with the Governing Documents by granting Plaintiff access to the adjacent patio so that Plaintiff could repair and restore the condominium building and patio to their original, unmodified conditions, at the Defendant’s expense.

Accordingly, the court finds that Plaintiff is the “prevailing party.”

Whether the Attorney Fees are Reasonable

A court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of the case.¿ (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 553, 579-580.) Reasonable hourly compensation does not include inefficient or duplicative efforts, also known as “padding.”¿ (Id) (italics added). This lodestar method is used to calculate attorney’s fees awarded under Civil Code sections 1717 and 5975(c). (EnPalm LLC v. Teitler Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 774; Almanor at 779.)  

Prevailing parties are compensated for hours reasonably spent on fee-related issues.¿(Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 621, 635.) The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise.¿(PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1096.) The trial court may make its own determination of the value of the services contrary to, or without the necessity for, expert testimony.¿(Id.) The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.¿(Id) (italics added). The trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his or her court and this judgment will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.¿(Id.) 

Here, Plaintiff seeks $27,263.22 in attorney fees. Plaintiff provides the following explanation in support of the attorney fees:

In this case, the Association is not seeking a lodestar increase over and above the actual fees it incurred to prosecute this action. However, the Association is asking the court to exercise its discretion to award the full amount of attorney’s fees incurred, beginning with the Association’s ADR offer in March of 2021. This is because the Association had no choice but to incur those fees to enforce the governing documents against Defendant  . . .

Association’s attorney spent approximately 68.50 hours of attorney time at a blended hourly rate of $265.00 and $280.00, 9.10 hours of law clerk time at an hourly rate of $175.00, and 25.80 hours of paralegal time at an hourly rate of $100.00 for legal fees totaling $24,829.50.

(Motion p. 9, 10.)[1]

The court finds Plaintiff’s attorney fees unreasonable because expending 103.4 hours on this straight-forward matter is too much.

First, prior to filing the instant action on July 23, 2021, Plaintiff took the following actions:

• On December 30, 2020, the firm sent Defendant a Formal Demand for Inspection letter

• On January 14, 2021, the firm informed Defendant that the Association could do its inspection without entering the property but from an adjacent patio

• On February 17, 2021, the firm sent a follow-up letter

• On March 25, 2021, the firm sent Defendant a Formal Demand for Compliance letter to invite Defendant to participate in Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”)

• On May 12, 2021, the firm sent Defendant a Final Demand for Compliance letter and

• On June 29, 2021, the firm sent Defendant a Demand for Access to Perform Repairs letter.

(Kyriakedes Decl., pp. 2-4.)

A review of the letters sent to Defendants reveal that they recite the same general information, amount to no more than two pages, and do not include legal analysis aside from citations to various civil code sections. Moreover, the responses from Defendants amount to no more than a few sentences; therefore, they did not require more than a few minutes to review. As for the settlement negotiations that took place between April 5, 2022 and April 26, 2022 with the assistance of Defendant’s brother, the billing history does not reflect that the discussions took an inordinate amount of time. Consequently, the drafting of letters to Defendants, reviewing responses from Defendants, and engaging in settlement negotiations reasonably should have taken no more than fifty (50) hours. Therefore, as the billing history illustrates that the attorney(s) worked on most of such matters, using a blended hourly rate of $272.50 [calculated as follows: ($265.00 + $280.00)/2], the court determines this work amounts to $13,625.00.  

Second, a review of the court docket reveals that no substantive filings were made, aside from the instant Motion. Drafting the complaint (which here is factually straight-forward), filling out requests for entry of default (on a standard CIV-100 form), attending a hearing (that likely took no more than thirty minutes), and making the various court filings required, at most, twenty (20) hours of time. As the billing history illustrates that the law clerk and paralegal prepared most of the substantive legal work, using an average hourly rate of $137.50 [calculated as follows ($175+$100)/2], the court determines this work amounts to $2,750.00.

Therefore, the court finds the total reasonable number of hours to be 70 hours and reasonable attorney fees to be $18,808.72 [calculated as follows: $13,625 + $2,750.00 + $2,433.72].

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court grants the motion in a reduced amount.