This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/15/2020 at 01:56:10 (UTC).

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY VS EDUARDO KLINKOVICH, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/27/2018 AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against EDUARDO KLINKOVICH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8843

  • Filing Date:

    06/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY

Defendants

KLINKOVICH DEANNA

KLINKOVICH EDUARDO AKA ERIKA KLINKOVICH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

STEVENSON TRACY ANN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

10/13/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

7/22/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

10/3/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

Judgment - Judgment Summary Judgment

12/17/2019: Judgment - Judgment Summary Judgment

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

1/3/2019: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

3/1/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

5/13/2019: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

5/13/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

5/13/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 07/16/2019

7/16/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 07/16/2019

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

7/16/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)

General Denial

9/26/2018: General Denial

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/24/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Summons - on Complaint

6/27/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

6/27/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/17/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment entered on 12/17/2020 ; Costs: 1,135.59 ; Status Date changed from 10/03/2019 to 12/17/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 10/13/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/13/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continuance of Motion for Attorney Fees; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff); As to: Eduardo Klinkovich (Defendant); Deanna Klinkovich (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 10/13/2020 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 07/22/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 10/13/2020 11:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Memorandum of Costs (Summary): Document changed from Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest to Memorandum of Costs (Summary); As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2020
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2020
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
38 More Docket Entries
  • 09/17/2018
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by: Eduardo Klinkovich (Defendant); Deanna Klinkovich (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff); As to: Deanna Klinkovich (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 07/11/2018; Service Cost: 99.42; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff); As to: Eduardo Klinkovich (Defendant); Service Date: 07/11/2018; Service Cost: 96.90; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff); As to: Eduardo Klinkovich (Defendant); Deanna Klinkovich (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: American Contractors Indemnity Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/26/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/27/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/30/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC08843    Hearing Date: October 13, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., October 13, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: American Contractors Indemnity Company v. Klinkovich, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC08843 COMP. FILED: 06-27-18

NOTICE: OK JUDGMENT: 12-17-19

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO BE DEEMED PREVAILING PARTY FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,262.19 based on $10,126.60 in attorney’s fees and $1,135.59 in costs.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of October 6, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 6, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 27, 2018, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Eduard Klinkovich aka Erik Klinkovich (“Eduard”) and Deanna Klinkovich (“Deanna”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants Eduard and Deanna filed an Answer, in pro per, on September 17, 2018 and September 26, 2018, respectively.

On February 25, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to deem requests for admission admitted against both Defendants. (2/25/19 Minute Order.) On October 3, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (10/3/19 Minute Order.) Judgment was thereafter entered against Defendants in the amount of $7,521.92, plus costs of suit and attorney’s fees to be determined by bill of costs and motion. (12/17/19 Judgment.)

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party and for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”).

The Court continued the initial July 22, 2020 hearing because Plaintiff’s Motion incorrectly stated the hearing would take place in Department 94 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (7/22/20 Minute Order.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a proof of service demonstrating Defendants were properly served with updated notice of hearing noting the correct department and courthouse. (Id.) On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Continuance demonstrating it gave Defendants of this hearing.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Civil Code section 1717 states in pertinent part: “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).)

“A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702, subd. (b)(1).) In a limited civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 30 days after service of a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.822, subd. (a)(1).)

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. A computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id., at p. 48, fn. 23.) After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is a reasonable figure. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096.)

As explained in Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154:

“[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. [Citation.] The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services. . . . This approach anchors the trial court's analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney's services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary.” [Internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.]

(Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140.) “It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [Citations.] The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. . . . 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. [Citations.]” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)

No specific findings reflecting the court’s calculations are required. The record need only show that the attorney fees were awarded according to the “lodestar” or “touchstone” approach. The court’s focus in evaluating the facts should be to provide a fee award reasonably designed to completely compensate attorneys for the services provided. The starting point for this determination is the attorney’s time records. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395-397 [verified time records entitled to credence absent clear indication they are erroneous].) However, California case law permits fee awards in the absence of detailed time sheets. (Sommers v. Erb (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1651; Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1810; Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 103.) An experienced trial judge is in a position to assess the value of the professional services rendered in his or her court. (Id.; Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 255.)

  1. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motion is timely and it is undisputed that it is the prevailing party as summary judgment was granted in its favor on October 3, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Plaintiff presents evidence that the parties entered into an Indemnity Agreement. (Mot., Stevenson Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) The Indemnity Agreement provides that Defendants agreed to “indemnify [Plaintiff] against all losses, liabilities, costs, damages, attorneys’ and consultants’ fees and expenses [Plaintiff] may incur or has incurred due to the execution and issuance of the bond, before, or after this date, including any modifications, renewals, or extensions of the bond or the enforcement of the terms of this indemnity agreement.” (Id.) (Emphasis added.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees incurred in the prosecution of this action.

Plaintiff’s attorney provides a breakdown of the work performed, which includes filing the action, attending hearings, propounding discovery, preparing a motion for summary judgment, and moving for attorney’s fees. (Id. at p. 5:16-19; Stevenson Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. 3.) The ledger demonstrates Plaintiff’s counsel and her firm billed a total of 41.1 hours. (Id.) Law clerks and paralegals billed at a rate between $130.00 and $185.00 per hour, and attorneys billed at a rate between $250.00 and $310.00 per hour. (Id.) The Court finds the number of hours billed, rates, and total fees of $10,126.60 to be reasonable in light of the work performed.

Plaintiff also requests costs of $1,135.59 based on $845.00 in filing and motion fees, $196.32 in service of process fees, and $94.27 in electronic filing/service fees. (Mot., p. 1:5-8; 1/3/20 Memorandum of Costs.) To recover a cost, it must be reasonably necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount. (Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (l992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 244.) The Court finds these costs to be reasonable and necessary.

Thus, Plaintiff’s request for $10,126.60 in attorney’s fees and $1,135.59 in costs is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,262.19 based on $10,126.60 in attorney’s fees and $1,135.59 in costs.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC08843    Hearing Date: July 22, 2020    Dept: 25

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party and for Attorney’s Fees is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 13, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 20, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 20, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 27, 2018, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract and common counts against Defendants Eduard Klinkovich aka Erik Klinkovich (“Eduard”) and Deanna Klinkovich (“Deanna”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants Eduard and Deanna filed an Answer, in pro per, on September 17, 2018 and September 26, 2018, respectively.

On February 25, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to deem requests for admission admitted against both Defendants. (2/25/19 Minute Order.) On October 3, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (10/3/19 Minute Order.) Judgment was thereafter entered against Defendants in the amount of $7,521.92, plus costs of suit and attorney’s fees to be determined by bill of costs and motion. (12/17/19 Judgment.)

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party and for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees, as a matter of right. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Civil Code section 1717 states in pertinent part: “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).)

“A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702, subd. (b)(1).) In a limited civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 30 days after service of a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.822, subd. (a)(1).)

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. A computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.) Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id., at p. 48, fn. 23.) After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is a reasonable figure. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096.)

As explained in Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154:

“[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. [Citation.] The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services. . . . This approach anchors the trial court's analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney's services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary.” [Internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.]

(Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140.) “It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [Citations.] The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. . . . 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. [Citations.]” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.)

No specific findings reflecting the court’s calculations are required. The record need only show that the attorney fees were awarded according to the “lodestar” or “touchstone” approach. The court’s focus in evaluating the facts should be to provide a fee award reasonably designed to completely compensate attorneys for the services provided. The starting point for this determination is the attorney’s time records. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395-397 [verified time records entitled to credence absent clear indication they are erroneous].) However, California case law permits fee awards in the absence of detailed time sheets. (Sommers v. Erb (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1651; Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1810; Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 103.) An experienced trial judge is in a position to assess the value of the professional services rendered in his or her court. (Id.; Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 255.)

  1. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motion is timely and it is undisputed that it is the prevailing party as summary judgment was granted in its favor on October 3, 2019. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4).) Plaintiff presents evidence that the parties entered into an Indemnity Agreement. (Mot., Stevenson Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 1.) The Indemnity Agreement provides that Defendants agreed to “indemnify [Plaintiff] against all losses, liabilities, costs, damages, attorneys’ and consultants’ fees and expenses [Plaintiff] may incur or has incurred due to the execution and issuance of the bond, before, or after this date, including any modifications, renewals, or extensions of the bond or the enforcement of the terms of this indemnity agreement.” (Id.) (Emphasis added.) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to recover any attorney’s fees incurred in the prosecution of this action.

Plaintiff’s attorney provides a breakdown of the work performed, which includes filing the action, attending hearings, propounding discovery, preparing a motion for summary judgment, and moving for attorney’s fees. (Id. at p. 5:16-19; Stevenson Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. 3.) The ledger demonstrates Plaintiff’s counsel and her firm billed a total of 41.1 hours. (Id.) Law clerks and paralegals billed at a rate between $130.00 and $185.00, and attorneys billed at a rate between $250.00 and $310.00. (Id.) The Court finds the number of hours billed, rates, and total fees of $10,126.00 to be reasonable in light of the work performed.

Plaintiff also requests costs of $1,135.59 based on $845.00 in filing and motion fees, $196.32 in service of process fees, and $94.27 in electronic filing/service fees. (Mot., p. 1:5-8; 1/3/20 Memorandum of Costs.) To recover a cost, it must be reasonably necessary to the litigation and reasonable in amount. (Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (l992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 244.) The Court finds these costs to be reasonable.

Although the Court is inclined to grant the Motion, the Notice of Motion incorrectly states the hearing will be held in Department 94 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. (Mot., p. i-ii.) Should Defendants wish to appear and oppose this Motion in person, they will be unable to do so. Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to serve Defendants with an updated notice noting the correct department and courthouse.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion to be Deemed Prevailing Party and for Attorney’s Fees is CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 13, 2020 at 11;00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.