Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

Plaintiff Annette C. Barajas’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED without prejudice.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

This is an action for partition. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Annette C. Barajas (“Barajas”) and Defendant Angel Marie Triola (“Triola”) each own one-half interests in certain real property in Torrance.  (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 14.)  Barajas repeatedly asked Triola to sell the real property but he refused.  (Compl. ¶ 1.)

PROCEDURAL HERTORY

On November 20, 2018, the Court entered a Final Statement of Decision.

On April 22, 2019, the Court entered Judgment in this case, finding that the remaining property is owned 50% by Barajas and 50% by Defendants Triola and her wholly owned company, Third Career Investments, LLC. The Court found that the sale of property and division of the proceeds would be more equitable than division of the property. The Court ordered the sale of the property using a prescribed procedure. 

Barajas filed the present Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on May 2, 2019.

On June 6, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal. 

Triola filed an Opposition on August 7, 2019.

Barajas filed a Reply on August 12, 2019.

On August 23, 2019, the Court continued the hearing to the present date to allow Triola an opportunity respond to Barajas’ more recently supplied monthly invoices for attorney services.

Triola filed a Supplemental Opposition on October 8, 2019.

On October 23, 2019, the Court continued the instant Motion for counsel to submit a supplemental declaration.

On November 7, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Order Fixing Amount of Appeal Bond. The Court held that the entire judgment, entered April 22, 2019, and any proceedings related thereto, shall be stayed pending appeal upon the giving of a bond in the amount of $10,000 from an admitted surety insurer.

“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.”¿ (Melnyk¿v. Robledo¿(1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623.)¿ In exercising its discretion, the court should consider a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in handling the matter, the attention given, the success or failure, and the resulting judgment.¿ (See¿id.)¿¿¿

In determining the proper amount of fees to award, courts use the lodestar method.¿ The lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the total number of reasonable hours expended by the reasonable hourly rate.¿ “Fundamental to its determination . . . [is] a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . in the presentation of the case.”¿ (Serrano v. Priest¿(1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (Serrano¿III).)¿ A reasonable hourly rate must reflect the skill and experience of the attorney.¿ (Id.¿at p. 49.)¿ “Prevailing parties¿are compensated for hours reasonably spent on fee-related issues.¿ A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.”¿ (Serrano v. Unruh¿(1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635 (Serrano IV).)¿ The¿Court in¿Serrano IV¿also stated that fees associated with preparing the motion to recover attorneys’ fees are recoverable.¿ (See¿id. at p. 624.)¿

Barajas originally asked for $94,500.00 in attorney's fees. (Motion at p. 4.) Triola filed an original Opposition on August 7, 2019. The Court continued the hearing because Barajas provided in the Reply attorney monthly invoice statements, which Triola had not been given the opportunity to review and address before the Court.

Triola’s Supplemental Opposition, filed on October 8, 2019 reiterated several  arguments previously addressed by the Court in its August 23, 2019 order. 

As in her original Opposition, Triola objected that the requested attorneys’ fees are improper because after a partial settlement in May 2017, the remaining issues concerned the parties’ respective interests in a remaining property, and as such was an action for quiet title, not partition under Code of Civil Procedure § 874.040.  (Supplemental Opposition at p. 3.) However, the Court addressed this argument in its Statement of Decision, as well as in its previous Order, by noting that statute specifically empowers the Court to determine the interests of the parties in partition actions, not just actions for quiet title. (See 11/20/2018 Statement of Decision at pp. 4-5; Code Civ. Proc. § 872.610 [“The interests of the parties, plaintiff as well as defendant, may be put in issue, tried and determined in the action.”].)

Triola further reiterates her argument in the original Opposition, contending that there can be no award of attorneys’ fees while an appeal is pending because there is no “prevailing party.” (Supplemental Opposition at pp. 3--4.) However, as the Court noted in the previous Order, courts regularly award fees despite possible or pending appeals. A separate appeal may be filed pursuant to the relevant requirements to contest the award of attorneys’ fees. (See, e.g., Silver v. Pacific American Fish Co., Inc. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 688, 693.)

In her Supplemental Opposition, Triola also argue that the invoices for dates prior to the May 10, 2017 settlement should be disregarded because the settlement changed the case from a partition case to a quiet title case. (Supplemental Opposition at p. 4.)  However, as the Court addressed above, the case did not become a quiet title action, and the argument is without merit.  (See 11/20/2018 Statement of Decision at pp. 4-5.)

On October 23, 2019, the Court continued the Motion for Barajas’ counsel to submit a supplemental declaration and Triola’s counsel to submit a Reply.

In the Supplemental Declaration, attorney Lance Armo declares that Barajas now asks for $93,397.00 in attorneys’ fees. (Armo Decl. ¶ 7.) Armo declares that the legal fees post-mediation from May 2017 to the present are 290.2 hours totaling $85,609.00 in fees, plus $7,788.00 in fees for pre-settlement work, which Armo calculated as 1/3 of the overall pre-settlement fees for a sum total of $93,397.00. (Armo Decl. ¶ 6.) Included with the Declaration are invoice statements listing services performed and the amount of time expended on those services. 

In Reply, Triola argues that there is a legitimate question as to whether Barajas is the prevailing party. (Reply at p. 3.) However, as to the third property, the Court has previously found that Barajas is the prevailing party and Triola’s own Notice of Appeal provides is “from the Judgment entered April 22, 2029 in favor of Plaintiff Annette C. Barajas, and against Defendants Angel Marie Triola and Third Career Investments, LLC.” (Notice of Appeal 6/6/19.) 

The Court finds the hourly rate requested by Barajas to be reasonable. However, Barajas has failed to correct the Court’s previous issues with the invoices she has provided. The Court does not find the invoices to be sufficiently descriptive of the work performed.  The invoices do not state on which date each activity was performed, only the date that the invoice was issued.  (Armo Decl., Exh. 1.) Further, the invoices do not provide enough detail for the Court to determine whether the hours represent work performed only with regards to the issues that remained after the May 2017 settlement. That settlement resolved all issues in the case relating to several other properties in contention other than1133 West 225th Street.  Attorney work on issues relating to these properties that should not be included in the present calculations. The only attorney work that is compensable at this point is attorney work relating to 1133 West 225th Street. 

Armo proposes to resolve this issue by claiming exactly one third of the attorneys’ fees invoiced for pre-settlement attorney work. (Armo Decl. ¶ 6.) However, this calculous does not necessarily yield a correct result. For example, in Armo’s own provided invoices, the final entry prior to the settlement agreement (which Armo has denoted on the invoices with a hand drawn line) is “Prepare settlement agreement following mediation for 2 properties” in the amount of $885. (Armo Decl. Exh. 1, 5/29/17 Invoice.) This settlement agreement is unrelated to the remaining third project at issue, here, and 1/3 of the $885 attorney’s fees should not be included in the award here. 

As discussed above, the Barajas’ invoices are thus not sufficiently specific for the Court to make a line-by-line determination of whether each entry includes work done for the third property or not. The inclusion of settlement entry in the invoice leads the Court to determine that entries have been included in Armo’s 1/3 calculation, which should not be included. Barajas must provide an accurate breakdown of the work that was performed for the third property only. A blanket 1/3 calculation over-simplifies the equation and will yield an inappropriate result. 

Accordingly, Barajas’ Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendants to give notice.

DATED:  January 2, 2020

________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court