Judge: William Y. Wood, Case: 37-2020-00022766-CU-MC-NC, Date: 2024-04-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 04, 2024

04/05/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:William Y Wood

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00022766-CU-MC-NC DENTON VS COFFELT [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Attorney Fees, 03/11/2024

Defendant Tina Coffelt's motion for attorneys' fees (ROA # 215) is granted in a reduced amount.

Defendant's objection (ROA # 241) is sustained. However, this ruling has no effect on the outcome of this motion. The outcome of the motion would be the same regardless of the ruling on the evidentiary objection.

On January 5, 2024, the court entered a judgment following bench trial finding as follows (ROA # 207): plaintiff Summerana Denton shall take nothing from her FAC; plaintiff Timothy Denton shall take nothing from his FAC; the FAC is dismissed with prejudice; and defendant Coffelt is deemed to be the prevailing party.

Defendant moves for attorneys' fees in the amount of $56,860 as the prevailing party pursuant to an attorney's fee provision in the lease agreement. ROA # 215-216. As the prevailing party, plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Civil Code § 1717.

'The determination of what constitutes a reasonable fee generally 'begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate....'' '[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....' Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154. Trial courts may rely on personal knowledge and familiarity with the legal market in setting the reasonable hourly rates. See Heritage Pac. Fin., LLC v Monroy (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 972, 1009.

The court has carefully reviewed the arguments, authorities and evidence submitted by the parties and finds that a reasonable and proper amount of attorney fees to be awarded to plaintiffs in this case is $35,500 consisting of the sum of (1) $18,000 for attorney Hall's services (40 hours at $450 per hour); (2) $12,00 for attorney Daveler's services (50 hours at $250 per hour); and (3) $5,000 (20 hours at $250 per hour).

The court is not persuaded that it is authorized to consider plaintiffs' financial condition in determining contractual reasonable attorney's fees because although an award of contractual attorney fees may be subject to equitable considerations, a losing party's financial condition should not be considered in the setting the amount of such an award. Walker v. Ticor Title Co. of California (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 363, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3110201 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DENTON VS COFFELT [IMAGED]  37-2020-00022766-CU-MC-NC 373 [distinguishing Garcia v. Santana (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 464, which holds a court may consider financial condition when considering award of statutory attorney's fees].

The court is not awarding fees for the remaining hours for which fees are sought in this case because, in the court's opinion, the remaining hours reflect time spent unreasonably or time spent on duplicative services.

Defendant should file an amended judgment which should include attorney's fees in the amount of $35,500 and costs in the amount of $2,834.84 (ROA # 205).

This minute order constitutes the court's order. No party is required to submit a proposed order after hearing.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, April 5, 2024. If no party appears telephonically at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of April 5, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to telephonically argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3110201