Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00343, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00343    Hearing Date: August 23, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On July 21, 2023, plaintiff Universal Shopping Plaza (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for attorneys’ fees after the Court entered judgment against defendant Yin Tai Jewelry, Inc. (“Defendant”) following a 3-day bench trial.  Judgment was signed and entered on May 22, 2023.  The action arose from a commercial lease agreement (the “Lease”) between the parties for commercial property located at 140 W. Valley Blvd., Unit #121, in San Gabriel, California (the “Premises”). 

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, which can include attorney’s fees, as a matter of right.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subd. (a)(4); 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)  This right may arise out of contract, statute or law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)  Additionally, a party prevailing on an action on a contract is entitled to attorney fees if the contract contains an attorney’s fees provision. (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) 

Here Plaintiff is entitled to the award of attorney fees as the prevailing party pursuant to a contractual agreement.  Section 30.2 of the Lease underlying this action provides that the prevailing party in an action or proceeding involving the Premises, whether founded in the Lease or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees.  California statutes and caselaw supports the award of attorney fees to a prevailing party pursuant to a contract, specifically in an action for unlawful detainer.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1021, 1032(b), 1033.5(a)(10)(A); Civ. Code § 1717(a).)

Defendant filed an objection on August 9, 2023, stating that Plaintiff’s motion was premature because the Court had not yet ruled on its objections to the statement of decision filed and served on May 24, 2023.  There is no record of any objection filed on May 24, 2023.  

Therefore, the only question left for the Court is whether Plaintiff’s attorneys’ request for $32,203.52 for work on the matter, plus an additional 7.5 hours and $2,700 to prepare for and attend the hearing on this motion is reasonable to justify an award of $34,903.52 in attorneys’ fees and $1,307.63 in costs for a total of $36,211.15.

The Court finds the hourly rate charged by Plaintiff’s attorneys’ office to be reasonable.  A paralegal’s time was billed at an hourly rate of $135, a partner’s time was billed at $425, and an associate’s time was billed at $350.  (Truong Decl., ¶ 13.)  Defendant did not submit any substantive opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.  Therefore, the motion for award of attorney fees and costs in the amount of $36,211.15  is GRANTED.

Dated this 23rd day of August, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.