The motion of defendant Mahfoud Djelmane for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED in the amount of $750.00.

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF DECISION:

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. On December 6, 2013, plaintiff Anza Management Company (“Plaintiff”) filed its complaint for unlawful detainer against defendants Hani Alhambly; Mahfoud Djelmane, et al.

2. On February 6, 2014, the Court conducted a Court Trial. The Court entered judgment for Defendant Mahfoud Djelmane and against Plaintiff Anza Management Company. The Court also entered judgment for Plaintiff Anza Management Company and against Defendant Hani Alhambly.

3. On February 20, 2014, Defendant Djelmane (hereinafter Defendant) filed this motion for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,200.00 pursuant to Civil Code §1717, California Rules of Court rule 3.1702 and Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1032, 1033.5. Defendant contends that he is entitled to reasonable attorney fees per the written residential lease agreement. Defendant is the prevailing party herein. CC §1717 requires the court to fix a reasonable amount in fees and should be determined according to the lodestar adjustment method. The requested fees herein are reasonable and the hourly rate of $250/$350 is also reasonable.

4. On March 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal on the judgment for Defendant.

5. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed its opposition to Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff contends that Defendant is not the prevailing party because the action was dismissed prior to trial. Defendant asserts that he never resided at the property. Plaintiff contends that Defendant cannot recover fees and costs in excess of the contractual limit – $750.

6. On March 13, 2014, Defendant filed its Reply. Defendant contends that they are the prevailing party and Plaintiff refused to dismiss Defendant. Defendant proceeded with his defense at the court trial and judgment was entered in his favor.

7. Contractual Attorney’s fees – Cal. Civ. Code §1717 governs entitlement to attorney fees for “action[s] on a contract.” The statute provides in relevant part: “(a) In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs . . . [¶] (b)(1) The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract. The court may also determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a), (b)(1).

8. The Court file reflects that a Court trial was conducted against Defendant and judgment was entered in favor of Defendant. There is no showing that Defendant was dismissed voluntarily by Plaintiff either prior to or during the trial. As such, Defendant is the prevailing party herein.

9. The lease agreement states in pertinent part, “20. Legal Fees: In any legal action brought by either party to enforce the terms of this LEASE, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs incurred in connection with that action, including reasonable attorney fees, up to seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) in addition to fees resulting from filing and serving court documents.” See Ex. A to the motion.

10. In Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 124, the California Supreme Court unequivocally held that a contractual limit on attorney’s fees was binding on the trial court. Id. at p. 130 (“Because the promissory notes contained provision limiting attorney’s fees to 15 percent of the amount of the notes ($60,794.12) recovery of fees under section 1717 must be similarly limited. As we have seen, the section establishes a reciprocal right to attorney’s fees, and the statutory right should be no greater than the contractual right.”)

11. Accordingly, this court is obliged to enforce the contractual fee limitation in the lease agreement.

12. Reasonable Amount of Fees – Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants incurred at least $750 in reasonable attorney’s fees throughout the course of this litigation. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $750.