Case Number: SC119809 Hearing Date: June 23, 2014 Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING – DEPT. P

JUNE 23, 2014 CALENDAR No: 4
[CONTD. FROM MAY 22]

SC119809 — MEISTER v. GORMAN, et al.

GORMAN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

This was a residential real estate purchase non-disclosure action against the sellers (the Gormans [moving parties]), their listing agent, and the supervising broker. Plaintiffs alleged that it was only after they purchased the subject residence that they learned that only four doors down there exists a residential care facility which houses 77 schizophrenic and potentially dangerous individuals “against their will on a 24-hour lock down basis.” The Gormans demurred to all four claims against them in Plaintiffs’ FAC. After the Court posted its tentative ruling sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend and dismissing the action as to the Gormans, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal as to the action in its entirety, without prejudice. The Gormans now seek fees and costs. The Court will grant the unopposed motion in part.

It is beyond dispute that the Gormans are the prevailing parties in this action under CC 1717 and the subject CAR Residential Purchase Agreement, and that under the RPA’s broad attorney’s fees provision, the Gormans are entitled to fees incurred in defending against all of Plaintiffs’ claims against them, including Plaintiffs’ tort claims. The only question before the Court is the amount of fees that should be awarded.

Motion is granted in part.

The Gormans’ request for fees is granted in part. Based on its familiarity with lodestar principles, based on the application of said principles to the case at bar, based on its familiarity with the case at bar, and based on its 43+ years of experience (including 19+ years as a bench officer), the Court calculates reasonable attorney’s fees as follows: $9,450.00, comprised of 35 hours at the reasonable rate of $270.00 per hour. This sum includes “fees on fees. Accordingly, the Gormans are awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $9,450.00.

Plaintiffs did not move to tax the costs bill (timely) served with the motion. However, the costs bill claims numerous non-existent filing and motion costs, such as purported costs for filing a notice of ruling, a proof of service, and a case management statement. The Gormans are entitled to certain filing fees claimed in the costs bill, as well as the $60.00 filing fee for this motion, the Court calculates same to total $1,170.00. Accordingly: The Gormans are awarded $1,170.00 in costs.

At this morning’s hearing, defense counsel is to explain why she claimed non- existent costs under oath.

The Gormans are to serve and lodge a proposed judgment of fees and costs pursuant to CRC 3.1312.

NOTICE

______ shall give notice of today’s rulings and admonition and timely file proof of service thereof, pursuant to CCP 1019.5 and CRC 3.1312.