18-CIV-02535 VALERIE TRENTER VS. DIANE JOSUE, ET AL.

VALERIE TRENTER DIANE JOSUE
MARTIN M. EISENBERG FRANCOIS X. SORBA

VALERIE TRENTER’S PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UPON THE AWARD AS CONFIRMED TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Valerie Trenter’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Order Confirming Arbitration Award is GRANTED. Petitioner’s moving and supporting papers satisfy the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1285 et. seq. The May 28, 2019 Interim Arbitration Award and the November 15, 2019 Award of Prevailing Party Attorney Fees and Costs (the “Arbitration Awards”) in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent Diane Josue, individually and as successor trustee of the William Heszler 2000 Living Trust, are confirmed. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. Sect. 1286.6, the Court also GRANTS Petitioner’s request to modify the Arbitration Awards to include the legal description of the subject property in accordance with the recorded deed for the property. See Notice of Petition, Ex. 4.

Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED-IN-PART. Petitioner’s request is based on the contract at issue, which allows the “prevailing party” to recover attorney’s fees and costs in “any action, proceeding, or arbitration” arising out of the agreement. Petitioner is the prevailing party on this Petition and on her Petition to Compel Arbitration and is thus entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs related to these proceedings. The Court makes these findings based upon the totality of the circumstances and exercising its discretion.

Respondent has not challenged the charged hourly rate, which the Court finds reasonable. Petitioner’s counsel is highly qualified. See Eisenberg Decl. The charged rate of $435/hr. is comparable to attorneys in this region of similar competence and experience based upon the Court’s own experience and set forth in the Eisenberg Decl. Id.

The Court also finds the number of hours expended and the work performed to be reasonable and properly documented. See Eisenberg Decl., Ex. 1. Respondent has objected to the fees claimed. The Court finds these objections unwarranted. It is true that a few of the entries make it difficult to assess how much time was spent on particular tasks, but these entries do not “obscure the nature of the work claimed.” Christian Research Inst. v. Alnor, 165 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1325 (2008). The entries sufficiently describe the nature of each task, and the total number of hours spent on these tasks is reasonable. Additionally, the Court finds that Mr. Eisenberg’s time spent on the related action, Case No. 18CIV03892, was reasonably related to Petitioner’s defense of her Petition to Compel Arbitration.

Petitioner also seeks $1,575.80 in costs for the proceedings to compel arbitration and to confirm the arbitration award. Petitioner agrees this amount should be reduced by $440. The Court further reduces this amount by $ 70.80, the total costs Petitioner claims for photocopies. Photocopy expenses are not allowable under Civ. Code Proc. Sect. 1033.5, except for exhibits and, are therefore, not recoverable as costs. “A contractual attorney fees award may not include expenses expressly denominated by statute as nonrecoverable cost items, such as experts’ fees not ordered by the court, postage, telephone and copying charges.” Wegner et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Trials & Ev. § 17:925 (TRG 2019) (citing cases). Petitioner’s cost entries do not specify whether any portion of the photocopy costs incurred were for exhibits.

Accordingly, the Court awards Petitioner $16,377.00 in attorney’s fees and $1,065 for costs ($1,575.80 – ($440 + $70.80)).

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. Additionally, counsel for Petitioner shall provide to Respondent and provide 5 days to object, and then submit to the Court a proposed Judgment in the same form as Exhibit A to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Order Confirming Arbitration Award, filed December 12, 2019, for the Court’s signature. The Order granting Petition shall be modified in accordance with this ruling. The Court will enter judgment after the order grating the petition has been signed.