TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff San Tan Heights Homeowners Association’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,467.50 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES AND $478.48 IN COSTS.

ANALYSIS:

On June 10, 2019, Judgment Creditor San Tan Heights Homeowners Association (“Judgment Creditor”) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister State Judgment. The Court entered judgment the same day against Judgment Debtor Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles (“Judgment Debtor”). On August 22, 2019, Judgment Debtor filed a Motion to Vacate Sister State Judgment (“the Motion to Vacate”), which came for hearing on October 23, 2019. At the initial hearing, the Court continued the matter upon finding that the Motion to Vacate was improperly served on Judgment Creditor in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a. (Minute Order, 10/23/19.) Judgment Creditor did not appear at that time. (Ibid.) The Court continued the hearing to January 22, 2020 and ordered Judgment Debtor to properly serve Judgment Creditor. (Ibid.)

On January 17, 2020, Judgment Debtor untimely filed and served a supplemental declaration regarding service in the underlying action. At the January 22, 2020 hearing, the Court’s tentative ruling addressed the service issues in detail, except for matters raised in the late-filed declaration on January 17, 2020, of which the Court was unaware. The Court again continued the hearing with orders that the parties file supplemental briefs addressing the amount of the judgment entered here compared to the judgment entered and renewed in Arizona. (Minute Order, 01/22/20.) On January 29, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed a supplemental opposition, and Judgment Debtor filed a supplemental brief on February 28, 2020. On August 3, 2020, the Motion to Vacate came for hearing again and the Court took the matter under submission. (Minute Order, 08/03/20.) On August 4, 2020, the Court denied the Motion to Vacate. (Minute Order, 08/04/20.)

On May 12, 2021, the Court granted Judgment Creditor’s first Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs. (Minute Order, 05/12/22.) On July 21, 2022, the Court denied Judgment Creditor’s Motion for Assignment Order. (Minute Order, 07/21/22.)

The instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs was filed on May 27, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Request for Judicial Notice

The Motion is accompanied by a request for judicial notice of the (1) Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for San Tan Heights recorded in the Pinal County, Arizona Recorder's Office on January 31, 2002 as Instrument No. 2002-004822; (2) Judgment

entered in the Apache Junction Justice Court, County of Pinal, State of Arizona, entitled San

Tan Heights Homeowners Association v. Maria Josielyne Dy Angeles and John Doe Dy Angeles with case number CV-20112903; and (3) Judgment on Sister-State Judgment entered in the above-entitled action, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court with case number 19STCP02332. The request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to California Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (c) and (d).

Entitlement to Attorney Fees and Costs

“The judgment creditor may claim under this section the following costs of enforcing a judgment: . . . (6) Attorney’s fees, if allowed by Section 685.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure, section 685.040 states: “The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are not included in costs collectible under this title unless otherwise provided by law. Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.” Also, the motion must be brought with two years of the incurred costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080, subd. (a).)

As the Court previously ruled, because the judgment in the underlying case awarded attorney fees, Judgment Creditor entitled to attorney fees incurred enforcing its judgment in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040. (Motion, RJN, Exh. 2, ¶7.) The Motion is timely filed with respect to fees and costs incurred from August 17, 2020 to May 24, 2022. (Motion, Baillio Decl., ¶¶7-9.)

Calculation of Attorney Fees and Costs

The Court’s objective is to award attorney fees at the fair market value based on the particular action.  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)  “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “‘[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . .’” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134.)  The lodestar method is based on the factors, as relevant to the particular case: “(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.”  (Id. at 1132.) “The ‘‘experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’’” (Id.) A negative modifier was appropriate when duplicative work had been performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)

Judgment Creditor moves for an award of $5,467.50 in attorney’s fees and $478.48 in costs. In support, Judgment Creditor submits the declaration of its attorney, Austin Baillio (“Baillio”). Baillio declares he billed $300.00 per hour until January 1, 2022, after which he billed $325.00 an hour. (Motion, Baillio Decl., ¶6.) Another partner, Charles B. Sellers, also billed $300.00 an hour and junior associate Kristopher L. Amundsen billed $275.00 per hour until January 1, 2022, after which he also billed at $300.00. (Ibid.) During that time, Baillio billed $ $3,547.50 for 8.6 hours of attorney time, and two flat-rate fees of $450.00 for the writ of execution and assignment order. (Id. at ¶9 and Exh. A.) Attorney Sellers billed $210.00 for 0.7 hours of work and Attorney Amundsen billed $855.00 for three hours of attorney time. (Id. at ¶¶7-8 and Exh. A.) The firm’s paralegals also billed $237.50 for 1.9 hours billed at $125.00 per hour. (Id. at ¶¶12-14 and Exh. A.) This attorney and paralegal time was spent truing to resolve the dispute with Judgment Debtor; search for Judgment Debtor’s assets, drafting a notice of ruling, drafting a memorandum of costs obtaining a writ of execution, obtaining a wage garnishment, and drafting the motion for assignment order. (Id. at ¶¶5, 17 and Exh. A.) Also, Baillio seeks fees of $617.50 for 1.9 hours drafting and appearing for this Motion. (Id. at ¶15.)

The Court finds the rates charged by Plaintiff’s counsel for the hours are billed, and the 13.2 hours spent on collection efforts, reasonable in light of the history of this case and Judgment Debtor’s failure to pay the judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees of $5,467.50. Plaintiff also seeks an award of $478.48 for investigation, filing fees, appearance fees, and other costs. (Id. at Exh. A, p. 4.) These costs are likewise supported by the attorney declaration are awarded to Plaintiff. (Ibid.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff San Tan Heights Homeowners Association’s Motion for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,467.50 IN ATTORNEY’S FEES AND $478.48 IN COSTS.

Moving party to give notice.