On 05/05/2016 MISSION WEST LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MACIAS, MARK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****5614
05/05/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MISSION WEST LLC
MACIAS MARK
CASTANEDA MONICA
LAW OFFICE OF CLIFF DEAN SCHNEIDER
MEEHAN ESQ SCOTT A
SCOTT A MEEHAN ESQ
ESQ SCOTT A MEEHAN
MEEHAN SCOTT A.
SCHNEIDER CLIFF DEAN
ORCHON EDWARD STEPHEN
8/1/2019: Appeal - Remittitur - Affirmed - Appeal - Remittitur - Affirmed BV032712
8/5/2019: Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees
8/6/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re Reassignment (from Inactive Court)) of 08/06/2019
8/21/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order
5/5/2016: Summons
9/26/2016: Response (name extension) - ANSWER
5/2/2017: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
10/27/2017: Minute Order - (Ex-Parte Proceeding)
1/11/2018: Minute Order - (Non-Jury Trial)
1/24/2018: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)
1/24/2018: Motion for Attorney Fees
2/22/2018: Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order - (Amended)
2/22/2018: Judgment
3/29/2018: Minute Order - (Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of Service and Entry of...)
4/16/2018: Notice (name extension) - of entry of judgment and amended judgment
5/7/2018: Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 - Clerks Transcript
6/13/2018: Appeal - Notice to Appellant of Estimated Transcript Costs
7/11/2018: Appeal - Notice of Default Issued
Hearingat 1030 AM in Department 94 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other (name extension)
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk
DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 08/29/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Continued - Court Congestion was rescheduled to 10/29/2019 10:30 AM
DocketMemorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees; Filed by: MARK MACIAS (Defendant)
DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. Serena R. Murillo; Reason: Other
DocketHearing on Motion - Other Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 08/29/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94
DocketHearing on Motion - Other Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 08/29/2019 at 09:00 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 1
DocketHearing on Motion - Other Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 08/29/2019 at 09:00 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 1
DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment (from Inactive Court))
DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re Reassignment (from Inactive Court)) of 08/06/2019; Filed by: Clerk
DocketA/C - MOTION FILING REASON: OTHERS
DocketMOTION FILED: MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTN HEARING SET FOR 6/01/17
DocketJURY FEE DEPOSIT RECEIVED
DocketNOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES FILED. NOTICE OF POSTING OF JURY FEES FILED. ACTION FILED: MAY 5, 2016 TRIAL DATE NOVEMBER 6, 2017
DocketRESPONSE FILED - ANSWER
DocketNON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 11/06/17, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: MISSION WEST LLC (Plaintiff)
DocketCOMPLAINT FILED - BREACH OF CONTRACT Filing Fee: 225.00
DocketSUMMONS FILED
DocketOSC SET 05/06/19, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER
Case Number: 16K05614 Hearing Date: October 29, 2019 Dept: 94
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES (Civ. Code § 1717)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Mission West, LLC’s Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED.
I. Background
At a bench trial on January 11, 2019, Judge Joseph R. Kalin found that a money judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff Mission West, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendant Macias Mark (“Defendant”). On February 15, Judge Kalin also awarded Plaintiff $40,905 in attorney fees based on the parties’ contract under CCP § 1717. Defendant appealed the award of attorney fees, but on August 1, this Department received a remittitur from the Apelllate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court affirming the award.
On August 5, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Attorney Fees (the “Motion”) asking for an additional award of attorney fees for the successful appeal. Defendant filed an Opposition on August 19, and Plaintiff replied on August 22. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Motion for Attorney Fees (the “Amended Motion”) October 3. The Amended Motion asks for further attorney fees for the successful ex parte application that was granted on August 29 as well as the Amended Motion. The Court considers the Amended Motion.
II. Discussion
Plaintiff asks for $23,355 in attorney fees for the successful appeal and ex parte application based on the parties’ contract. (Motion p. 3.) Indeed, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees for the appeal as well as the ex parte application for the trial work. “Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1717, where a written contract expressly provides for the award of attorney fees, the prevailing party in an action under or relating to the contract is entitled to recover its fees, whether incurred at trial or on appeal. [Citation.]” (Starpoint Properties, LLC v. Namvar (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1111, emphasis added.)
In opposition, Defendant contends that the request should be denied because the requested amount is unreasonable and exceeds 1500% of the actual damages in the case. (Oppo. pp. 1-2.) Defendant’s logic does not follow his conclusion. The remedy to a request for unreasonable and excessive attorney fees is to award reasonable attorney fees rather than to deny the entire request.
To determine reasonable attorney fees, the Court “begins with the ‘lodestar, [method]’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . .’” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) 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 p. 1132.) Contrary to Defendant’s contention, the amount of money judgment entered, is not relevant to determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded. (Id.)
It is well-established that “‘the verified time statements of [an] attorney [ ], as [an] officer[ ] of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous.’ [Citation.]” (City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 785.) Here, Plaintiff has provided an invoice to show the legal services its attorney provided for the appeal and ex parte application. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s invoice, the Court finds the number of hours spent on various services is unreasonable and reduces it to the reasonable amount of attorney fees of $20,333. Plaintiff is awarded this reasonable amount of attorney fees.
III. Conclusion & Order
For the stated reasons, the Amended Motion is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.