19-CLJ-01802 BLUEWAVE HOME SOLUTIONS, LLC VS. MONTE MANIZ, II

BLUEWAVE HOME SOLUTIONS, LLC MONTE MANIZ
PETE RYAN

PETITIONER BLUE WAVE HOME SOLUTIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Blue Wave Home Solutions, LLC’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Respondent Monte Maniz II dba Paramount Builders’ (“Respondent”) objection is OVERRULED. (See Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Rutter, Jun. 2019 Update) ¶ 9:102.6.)

Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED, BUT NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED THEREIN, as to: (1) Request no. 1 (Petition filed on March 28, 2019); (2) Request no. 5 (Petitioner’s reply papers filed May 2, 2019); and (3) Request no. 6 (Court’s tentative ruling and order of May 9 and 10, 2019).

Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as to: (1) Request no. 2 (Petitioner’s “Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed April 25, 2019”); (2) Request no. 3 (“Declaration of Karyne T. Ghantous in support of [Respondent]’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed April 25, 2019”); and (3) Request no. 4 (“Request for Judicial Notice in Support of [Respondent]’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed April 25, 2019”). These filings do not exist. On April 25, 2019, Respondent filed his opposition, counsel’s declaration, and request for judicial notice in “opposition to Petitioner’s Petition for Release of Property From Lien,” and not in “opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.”

Petitioner is the prevailing party on the petition and entitled to attorney fees and costs. (Civ. Code § 8488, subd. (c). See also 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Est. (4th ed., May 2019 Update) § 32:67.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 is not applicable to this motion.

The instant motion is not a sanctions motion. Respondent cites to no legal authority to support his argument that a fees motion brought pursuant to Civil Code section 8488, subdivision (c) is a sanctions motion. (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 35, superseded by statute on other grounds in Union Bank v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 583 (“A point which is merely suggested by a party’s counsel, with no supporting argument or authority, is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion”). Accordingly, Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 is not applicable to this motion.

Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the reasonableness of the fees sought. The Court finds Petitioner counsel’s declaration insufficient. (Huang Dec. ISO Atty Fees, filed Jun. 12, 2019, ¶¶ 7, 8.) Ms. Huang failed to provide detailed evidence of hours spent and the tasks concluded. Moreover, Ms. Huang has not established her personal knowledge for the hours billed by Mr. Ryan.

Furthermore, the redacted invoices for billings incurred through April 30, 2019 are of no assistance. (Huang Dec., supra, at Ex. B.) First, the redaction of the entirety of billing descriptions based on attorney-client privilege is overbroad. (See Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Sup.Ct. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 296 (“The same is true for billing invoices. While a client’s fees have some ancillary relationship to legal consultation, an invoice listing amounts of fees is not communicated for the purpose of legal consultation. The mere fact that an attorney transmitted a communication to his or her client confidentially (in the sense that no one other than the recipient could see the communication) does not end the inquiry into whether the communication’s contents are protected by the attorney-client privilege.”).) Second, the Court declines Petitioner’s request to hold an in camera review. Third, Exhibit B does not account for any time billed by Mr. Ryan.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Petitioner shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court