On 10/23/2017 MARICOPA MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION filed an Other - Sister State Judgment lawsuit against GLORIA MARQUEZ AND REGINO MARQUEZ, WIFE AND HUSBAND. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MARICOPA MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
GLORIA MARQUEZ AND REGINO MARQUEZ WIFE AND HUSBAND
BAILLIO BRETT AUSTIN
1/3/2018: Proof of Personal Service
5/14/2018: Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment
10/23/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
10/23/2017: Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment
Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Issued by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Writ of Execution (FRESNO); Issued by: Clerk; County: FRESNORead MoreRead Less
Proof of Personal Service; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Gloria Marquez and Regino Marquez, wife and husband (Defendant); Service Date: 12/07/2017; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: NoRead MoreRead Less
Case assigned to in ROOM 118 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Gloria Marquez and Regino Marquez, wife and husband (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Court orders judgment entered for Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation against Defendant Gloria Marquez and Regino Marquez, wife and husband on the Complaint filed by Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation on 10/23/2017 for the principal amount of $5,561.21, interest of $507.13, and costs of $225.00 for a total of $6,293.34.Read MoreRead Less
Judgment; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: 17STCP01013 Hearing Date: November 20, 2019 Dept: 94
Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association v. Gloria Marquez and Regino Marquez
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
(CCP § 685.040)
Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association’s Motion for Attorney’s fees is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,235.45.
On October 31, 2017, this Court entered as judgment a sister-state judgment from the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona in favor of Plaintiff / Judgment Creditor Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendants Gloria Marquez and Regino Marquez (collectively “Defendants”). On July 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs (the “Motion”), requesting $2,540.00 in attorney’s fees and $695.45 in costs. (Baillio Decl. ¶¶ 15-16.)
Defendants do not oppose.
II. Request for Judicial Notice
Plaintiff requests judicial notice of Exhibits “1” to “3,” all of which are records from the State of Arizona and this Court. The request is GRANTED.
III. Legal Standard
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.” The motion may be brought with two years of the incurred costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080, subd. (a).)
A. Attorney’s fees
The Court’s objective is to award attorney’s fee 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.) Code of Civil Procedure section 685.070, subdivision (a) states in pertinent part: “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.”
Here, because the sister-state judgment awarded attorney’s fees, this Court may award attorney’s fees as costs under CCP § 685.070(a)(6). (See RJN, Exh. 2.)
Plaintiff supports its request for $3,235.45 in attorney’s fees and costs by submitting a declaration of its counsel and a service invoice. (See Baillio Decl.; Exh. A.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel declaration satisfies the requirements of CCP § 685.080(b).
Plaintiff’s attorney provides a breakdown of the time spent on this action, which includes domesticating the judgment, serving notice of entry, obtaining a writ of execution and bank levy, obtaining and recording an abstract of judgment, and drafting this motion. (Id. at ¶4.) In total, Plaintiff’s attorney states three attorneys billed a total of 3.0 hours on this action, which appears reasonable. (See Baillio Decl.; Exh. A.) Their hourly rates of also were reasonable. Additionally, Plaintiff’s attorney spent 2.5 hours preparing this motion and estimated spending 0.4 hours for appearance time. That time is reasonable.
Based on the foregoing rate and number of hours billed, Plaintiff is entitled to recover $2,540.00 in attorney’s fees against Defendants.
As to costs, Plaintiff seeks a total of $695.45 in costs, for electronic monitoring fees, filing fees, service fees, sheriff’s fees, fees for writs of execution and wage garnishment fees, and background research fees. Pursuant to CCP § 685.080(a), a claim for costs may be made via noticed motion, so long as they are accompanied by an affidavit stating that the costs were reasonable and necessary. The Court concludes Plaintiff has complied with this requirement. (See Baillio Decl. ¶16, Exh. A.)
The Court awards the amount of costs as requested in the sum of $695.45.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s fees and Costs is GRANTED IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $3,235.45.
Moving party to give notice.