Ninel Barishman Vs Carlos Rios

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17VEUD01135    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: A

# 5. Ninel Barishman v. Carlos Rios

Case No.: 17VEUD01135

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Entry of an Order of Attorney Fees

Tentative ruling:

1. Background

   This is an unlawful detainer action. Defendant Carlos Rios prevailed at trial. This Court awarded $20,070.00 in attorneys’ fees on April 26, 2018. Plaintiff Ninel Barishman attempted to appeal but served a deficient opening brief. Rios was awarded costs for the appeal. Subsequently, this Court awarded Rios an additional $10,960 in fees for the appeal on May 30, 2019.

   Rios moved to vacate the May 30, 2019 award because the remittitur for the appeal was not issued until June 13, 2019, making the attorneys’ fees motion premature and void. Currently, Rios requests the Court enter an order awarding attorneys’ fees now that the remitter has issued. The motion is unopposed.

   For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

2. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1032(a)(b) states that a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding, unless a statute expressly states otherwise. Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a) lists the costs that are recoverable and includes attorney’s fees when they are authorized by either contract, statute, or law. (C.C.P., § 1033.5(a)(10).) “ ‘ “[F]ees, if recoverable at all­—pursuant either to statute or parties’ agreement—are available for services at trial, and on appeal.” ’ [Citation.]” (Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 352.)

The procedure for determining reasonable attorneys’ fees was set by the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25, 48–49. The trial court determines the lodestar amount by “careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . involved in the case.” (Serrano, supra, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 48.) In setting the lodestar, the court may consider multiple factors, e.g. the nature of the work performed and the skill and experience of the attorneys. (Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 629, 647.) “Reasonably spent” means “‘padding’ in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation.’ [Citation.]” (Rey v. Madera Unified School Dist. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1243.)

1. Analysis

   The Court’s previous analysis of Rios’s attorneys’ fees is still applicable and is as follows:

   Rios provides declarations and hour computations the two attorneys who worked on the appeal, Mr. Hermansen and Mr. Post. Both billed at $400/hr. The Court’s previous order found Mr. Hermansen’s rate to be reasonable. Mr. Post has similar experience to Mr. Hermansen and is his firm’s main lead on appellate matters. The Court finds Mr. Post’s hourly rate to be reasonable.

   Defense counsel also provide detailed billing reports accounting for their time. The Court finds these sums to be reasonable, but subtracts four hours ($1,600) from Hermansen’s total as he has allotted four hours to combat an opposition, of which there is none.

   The Court grants the motion for attorneys’ fees, in part, and awards $10,560 in fees.

2. Ruling

   The motion for an award of attorneys’ fees is granted. Defendant is awarded $10,560 in fees.

   Next dates:

   Notice: