MISSION WEST LLC VS MACIAS, MARK

Tentative Rulings

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.