This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 19:53:09 (UTC).

FASTMAKER LLC VS TON-UN KIM ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/01/2015 FASTMAKER LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TON-UN KIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOANNE O'DONNELL and HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0756

  • Filing Date:

    05/01/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOANNE O'DONNELL

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

FASTMAKER LLC

SHIM YOUNG

SHANGHAI NEX-T COMPANY LTD.

JUNG YUN SUK

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

FANG CLOTHING

FASHION LIFE INC.

KIM TON-UN

KIM TONY

DESIGN BY NATURE LLC DBA

ITEX

KIM TON-UN AKA TONY KIM

DESIGN BY NATURE LLC DBA DBA ITEX

FASHION LIFE INC. DBA FANG CLOTHING

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

KIM TON-UN AKA TONY KIM

FASHION LIFE INC. DBA FANG CLOTHING

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

RESCH POLSTER & BERGER LLP

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

FENSTER FRED A.

MYUNG S. CALVIN ESQ.

LIM SHI YOUNG

STEIN STEVEN AARON

PARK DANIEL MINSOO

Cross Defendant Attorney

KHALILI SANDRA

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF SPECIALLY APPEARING CROSS-DEFENDANT YOUNG SHIM TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND CROSS- COMPLAINT; ETC.

4/13/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF SPECIALLY APPEARING CROSS-DEFENDANT YOUNG SHIM TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND CROSS- COMPLAINT; ETC.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/7/2015: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

6/8/2015: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

NOTICE OF LODGING EXECUTED DECLARATION OF LEILA CHEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

8/21/2015: NOTICE OF LODGING EXECUTED DECLARATION OF LEILA CHEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS

DECLARATION OF TONG-UN KIM AKA TONY KIM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

9/1/2015: DECLARATION OF TONG-UN KIM AKA TONY KIM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

PEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

9/1/2015: PEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF TONG-UN KIM AKA TONY KIM AND S. CALVIN MYUNG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND FOR

9/4/2015: PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATIONS OF TONG-UN KIM AKA TONY KIM AND S. CALVIN MYUNG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND FOR

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

11/9/2015: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

11/23/2015: NOTICE OF ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

3/1/2016: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/11/2016: DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR (1) BREACH OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT; (2) VIOLATION OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; (3) CONVERSION; ETC.

1/30/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR (1) BREACH OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT; (2) VIOLATION OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; (3) CONVERSION; ETC.

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF CROSS-DEFENDANT FASTMAKER, LLC TO CROSS- COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF SANDRA KHALILI

5/1/2017: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF CROSS-DEFENDANT FASTMAKER, LLC TO CROSS- COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF SANDRA KHALILI

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

5/16/2017: REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CROSS-COMPLAINT

Minute Order

9/8/2017: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL? CIVIL

9/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL? CIVIL

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

9/28/2017: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

11/13/2017: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

137 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/24/2019
  • Association of Attorney; Filed by Fashion Life, Inc. (Defendant); Ton-Un Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • Notice (Re Continuance of Hearing and Order); Filed by Tony Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/22/2019
  • Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Fastmaker, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 42; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Advanced to a Previous Date) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-06-14 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • NOTICE OF RULING RE: (1) MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE, ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Fastmaker, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 42; Hearing on Motion to Quash ((Court makes order)) -

    Read MoreRead Less
301 More Docket Entries
  • 06/08/2015
  • REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2015
  • 1N11's Ntc of Hrng on Demurrer; Filed by Ton-Un Kim (Defendant); Tony Kim (Defendant); Fashion Life, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2015
  • DEFENDANTS TON-UN KIM AND FASHION LIFE, INC.'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2015
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2015
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2015
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Fastmaker, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: BC580756 Hearing Date: July 27, 2021 Dept: 26

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Superior Court of California

\r\n\r\n

County of Los Angeles

\r\n\r\n

Department\r\n26

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
\r\n

\r\n

FASTMAKER, LLC,

\r\n

\r\n

Plaintiff,

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

\r\n

TONG-UN KIM aka TONY KIM, individually, and as TRUSTEE\r\n OF THE KIM LIVING TRUST; FASHION LIFE, INC. dba FANG CLOTHING; DESIGN BY\r\n NATURE, LLC dba ITEX; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Defendants.

\r\n
\r\n

TONY TONG-UN KIM aka TONY KIM and FASHION LIFE, INC.\r\n dba FANG CLOTHING,

\r\n

\r\n

Cross-Complainants,

\r\n

vs.

\r\n

FASTMAKER, LLC,

\r\n

\r\n
\r\n

Cross-Defendant.

\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Case No.: BC580756

\r\n

\r\n

Hearing Dates: June 27, 2021

\r\n

\r\n

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

\r\n

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees

\r\n
\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Background

\r\n\r\n

This\r\nmatter came on for trial on February 3, 2020. \r\nOn February 24, 2020, the jury returned general verdicts in favor of Plaintiff\r\nFastmaker, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Fastmaker”) and against Defendants Tony Tung-Un\r\nKim aka Tony Kim (“Kim”), Fashion Life, Inc. (“Fashion Life”), the Kim Living\r\nTrust, and Design by Nature, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) on the First\r\nAmended Complaint’s first cause of action for Breach of Contract, second cause\r\nof action for Breach of Contract, third cause of action for Goods Sold and\r\nDelivered, fourth cause of action for Account Stated, fifth cause of action for\r\nOpen Book Account, and fourteenth cause of action for Fraudulent Transfer. The jury awarded compensatory damages of\r\n$1,500,000 to Fastmaker, found that Tony Kim, The Kim Living Trust, and Design\r\nby Nature acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in connection with the\r\nfraudulent transfer cause of action, and awarded $500,000 punitive damages\r\nagainst Tony Kim, $500,000 punitive damages against The Kim Living Trust, and\r\n$200,000 punitive damages against Design by Nature.

\r\n\r\n

As\r\nto Kim and Fashion Life’s Cross-Complaint, the jury returned general verdicts\r\nin favor of Fastmaker and against Kim and Fashion Life on the first cause of action\r\nfor Breach of Contract, second cause of action for Breach of the Implied\r\nCovenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, fifth cause of action for Intentional\r\nInterference with Prospective Economic Advantage, and sixth cause of action for\r\nNegligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. Except for the\r\nCross-Complaint’s seventh cause of action for Unfair Competition, all other\r\nclaims were dismissed by the parties. On\r\nSeptember 28, 2020, the Court entered its statement of decision as to the\r\nCross-Complaints’ seventh cause of action and entered judgment in favor of\r\nFastmaker and against Kim and Fashion Life.

\r\n\r\n

On\r\nOctober 20, 2020, Judgment was signed and entered. On October 20, 2020, the Court provided\r\nnotice of the entry of judgment. On October\r\n21, 2020, Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Entry of Judgment. On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a\r\nmemorandum of costs totaling $78,994.18.

\r\n\r\n

On January\r\n25, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorney fees. No opposition or reply has been filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

Pursuant\r\nto Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A), attorney\r\nfees when authorized by contract or statute are allowable as costs and may be\r\nawarded upon a noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section\r\n1033.5, subdivision (c)(5).

\r\n\r\n

In\r\ndetermining what fees are reasonable, California courts apply the “lodestar”\r\napproach. (See, e.g., Holguin v. DISH Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th\r\n1310, 1332.) This inquiry “begins with\r\nthe ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the\r\nreasonable hourly rate.” (See PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th\r\n1084, 1095.) From there, the “[t]he\r\nlodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors\r\nspecific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the\r\nlegal services provided.” (Ibid.) \r\nRelevant factors include: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the\r\nquestions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent\r\nto which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the\r\nattorneys, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122,\r\n1132.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

Right to Recover

\r\n\r\n

“In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides\r\nthat attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract,\r\nshall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then\r\nthe party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether\r\nhe or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to\r\nreasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code, § 1717(a).) When\r\na party obtains a simple, unqualified victory by completely prevailing on or\r\ndefeating all contract claims in the action and the contract contains a\r\nprovision for attorney fees, section 1717 entitles the successful party to\r\nrecover reasonable attorney fees incurred in prosecution or defense of those\r\nclaims.” (Scott Co. of California v.\r\nBlount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1108.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, the contract at issue in the\r\ninstant action expressly provided for attorney fees. (Khalili Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1 at ¶ 17, [“Any\r\ndispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including but not\r\nlimited to any questions regarding its existence, validity or termination,\r\nshall be resolved exclusively by the Los Angeles Superior Court for The Central\r\nDistrict or the United States District Court for the State of California\r\nCentral District. … The prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney\r\nfees and other expenses in connection with the litigation.”].) As the prevailing party in enforcing the underlying\r\ncontract, Plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees and costs.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Reasonableness of\r\nAttorney’s Fees

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff seeks attorney fees of $767,869.00. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks compensation\r\nfor $757,969.90 which consists of 1,841.80 hours spent by nine attorneys and\r\none paralegal over the course of the action. \r\nPlaintiff also seeks compensation for an estimated $9,900 for fees\r\nincurred in drafting the instant motion.

\r\n\r\n

The trial court has broad authority to determine the amount of a\r\nreasonable fee. (PLCM Group, Inc. v.\r\nDrexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The party bears the burden of proof\r\nas to “reasonableness” of any fee claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd.\r\n(c)(5).) The party seeking fees has the burden of documenting the appropriate\r\nhours expended and hourly rates. (City of\r\nColton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 784.) This burden requires\r\ncompetent evidence as to the nature and value of the services rendered. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d\r\n553, 559.)

\r\n\r\n

An attorney's testimony as to the number of hours worked is sufficient\r\nevidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed\r\ntime records or billing statements, and there is no requirement that such\r\nrecords or statements be offered in evidence. (Steiny & Co., Inc. v.\r\nCalifornia Electric Supply Co.\r\n(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 293.) \r\nAscertaining the fee amount is left to the trial court’s sound\r\ndiscretion. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) Moreover, “[t]here is ‘no mathematical rule\r\nrequiring proportionality between compensatory damages and attorney's fees\r\nawards’, [Citation], and courts have awarded attorney's fees where plaintiffs\r\nrecovered only nominal or minimal damages.” \r\n(Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 158\r\nCal.App.4th 407, 421.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Sandra Khalili

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Sandra Khalili (“Khalili”) was the lead attorney for Plaintiff\r\nand “spent a total of 1,155.60 hours on this matter at the hourly rates of\r\n$385, [$]435 and $495 for a total of $509,117.40.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(a).) Khalili has been in\r\npractice since 1997 focusing on various areas of civil litigation, including,\r\ncontractual disputes and collection matters. \r\n(Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(a).) Khalili\r\nis a partner at Resch Polster & Berger LLP and originally had an hourly\r\nrate of $385 which was increased 3 years into the litigation to $435 and then\r\nto $495 in January of 2020. (Khalili\r\nDecl. ¶ 37(a).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Robert W. Barnes

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Robert W. Barnes (“Barnes”)\r\n“worked 59.90 hours on this matter at hourly rates of $450, $515 and $565 for a\r\ntotal of $29,026.50.” (Khalili Decl. ¶\r\n37(b).) Barnes “was admitted to the\r\nCalifornia Bar in 1980, the U.S. District Court, Central District of\r\nCalifornia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in 1981, and the\r\nUnited States Tax Court in 1997.” (Khalili\r\nDecl. ¶ 37(b).) Barnes is a partner at Resch\r\nPolster & Berger LLP and “[h]is initial rate beginning in 2015 was $450,\r\nwas increased to $515 four years later and to $565 in January 2020.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(b).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Michael Baum

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Michael Baum (“Baum”) “worked\r\n5.3 hours at the hourly rates of $555 and $725 for a total of $3,060.50.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(c).) Baum has been in practice for over 45 years\r\nfocusing on civil litigation. (Khalili\r\nDecl. ¶ 37(c).) Baum’s hourly rate was\r\n$555 at the beginning of the case until January 2020 when it increased to\r\n$725. (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(c).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Andrew Jablon

\r\n\r\n

Attorney\r\nAndrew Jablon (“Jablon”) “worked 5.10 hours at the hourly rates of $385 and\r\n$495 for a total of $2,018.50.” (Khalili\r\nDecl. ¶ 37(d).) Jablon “was admitted to\r\nthe California Bar, as well as the bar for each of the U.S. District Courts in\r\nthe California and the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in 1998.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(d).) Jablon is a partner at Resch Polster &\r\nBerger LLP and “[h]is hourly rate was increased from $385 from the beginning of\r\nthe case to $495 in 2020.” (Khalili\r\nDecl. ¶ 37(d).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Stacey Knox

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Stacey Knox (“Knox”) “worked 109.40 hours\r\nat the hourly rates of $335, $340 and $395 for a total of $37,035.50.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(e).) Knox was admitted to\r\nthe California Bar in 1997 and focuses on civil litigation. (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(e).) Knox is an associate at Resch Polster &\r\nBerger LLP and “[h]is initial rate beginning in 2015 was $335, which increased\r\nto $340 in 2019 and then to $395 in January 2020.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(e).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Alisa Shu Edelson

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Alisa Shu Edelson (“Edelson”) “worked\r\n407.60 hours on this matter at the hourly rate of $385 for a total of\r\n$156,156.00.” (Khalili Decl. ¶\r\n37(f).) Edelson has been in practice\r\nsince 2001 focusing on various areas of civil litigation, including,\r\ncontractual disputes. (Khalili Decl. ¶\r\n37(f).) Edelson is an associate\r\nat Resch Polster & Berger LLPand has been assisting [Khalili] on\r\nthis matter since January 2020 including at the trial commencing on February 3,\r\n2020.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(f).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Morvareed Salehpour

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Morvareed Salehpour (“Salehpour”) “worked\r\n5.50 hours on this matter at the hourly rate of $350 for a total of $1,925.00.\r\nMs. Salehpour obtained her undergraduate degree from UCLA and her Juris Doctor\r\nfrom UCLA in 2010. She is has focused her practice on various areas of civil litigation.\r\nShe was an associate at [Resch Polster & Berger LLP]and assisted me in this matter\r\nin May 2017.” (Khalili Decl. ¶\r\n37(g).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney\r\nAbigail Van Deerlin

\r\n\r\n

Attorney\r\nAbigail Van Deerlin (“Van Deerlin”)worked 41.60 hours on this matter at\r\nthe hourly rate of $325 for a total of $13,097.50.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(h).) Van Deerlin is admitted in both California\r\nand New York focusing on civil litigation. \r\n(Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(h).) Van\r\nDeerlin was an associate at Resch Polster & Berger LLP “and assisted [Khalili]\r\nin this matter on selected projects from February through May 2019.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(h).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Mark McLauglin

\r\n\r\n

Attorney Mark McLauglin (“McLauglin”) “worked 2.40\r\nhours on this matter at the hourly rate of $295 for a total of $708.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(i).) McLauglin “has been licensed to practice in\r\nCalifornia since 2016 and has focused his practice on various areas of civil\r\nlitigation.” (Khalili Decl. ¶\r\n37(i).) McLauglin “assisted [Khalili] in\r\nthis matter on selected projects in August through September 2019 related to\r\ntrial preparation.” (Khalili Decl. ¶\r\n37(i).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Paralegal Jack Neff

\r\n\r\n

Paralegal Jack Neff (“Neff”) “spent a total of\r\n49.40 hours at the hourly rate of $195 for a total of $5,825.” (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(j).) “Neff has approximately 10 years of\r\nexperience as a paralegal.” (Khalili\r\nDecl. ¶ 37(j).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, the Court finds that the stated hourly rates\r\nare reasonable as they fall within established rates for attorneys in Southern\r\nCalifornia with a similar size firm and years of experience. (Khalili Decl., Ex. 4.) Similarly, the Court finds that the hours\r\nclaimed are reasonable. Though the total\r\namount of time claimed is high, the case was heavily litigated over five years\r\ninvolving numerous motions, a three-week jury trial involving seven witness,\r\nand a nonjury trial as to Defendants’ cross complaint under the Unfair\r\nCompetition Law. (See Khalili\r\nDecl. ¶¶ 2-34, [Detailing the work done in the instant action from May 1, 2015\r\nto January 14, 2021]; See also Khalili Decl., Ex. 2, [docket for the\r\ninstant Action].) Moreover, as noted in\r\nthe detailed ledger, only two attorneys worked on the case at any one time. As Defendants have not filed any opposition,\r\nthey fail to point to any time entry that appears reasonable for the work\r\nstated. (Khalili Decl. ¶ 37(a), Ex.\r\n3.)

\r\n\r\n

However, as to the 20 hours claimed for the\r\ninstant motion, the Court finds that the time claimed is excessive. Plaintiff claims that 12 hours was spent\r\ndrafting the instant motion and that another 8 hours will be spent reviewing\r\nthe opposition, preparing the reply, and attending the hearing. (Khalili Decl. ¶ 41.) Given that neither an opposition nor a reply has\r\nbeen filed, the time claimed should be reduced to reflect that. Moreover, 12 hours drafting the motions is\r\nexcessive, especially given the simplicity of the instant motion and that less\r\ntime had been claimed on more complicated motions. (See e.g. Khalili Decl., Ex. 3,\r\n[Noting a total of 8 hours spent on one of the demurrers].)

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly, utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality\r\nof the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount\r\nof attorney’s fees incurred is $759,454.90.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

\r\n\r\n

Based on\r\nthe foregoing, Plaintiff Fastmaker, LLC’s motion for attorney fees is GRANTED\r\nin the amount of $759,454.90.

\r\n\r\n

Moving Party is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof\r\nof service of such.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

DATED: July 27, 2021 _________________________

\r\n\r\n

Hon. Elaine Lu

\r\n\r\n

Los Angeles Superior Court

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FASTMAKER LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where ITEX Corporation is a litigant

Latest cases where Design by Nature, LLC is a litigant