13-623148
1. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Defendants and Cross-Complainants Rincon Consulting, Inc. and Lee Height’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $35,910.00 is GRANTED.

The court has broad authority to determine the amount of reasonable fees. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095. The court may make its determination of the value of the services rendered without the necessity of expert testimony. Id. at 1096. In making its determination, the court should consider a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and any other circumstances in the case. Id.

Defendants claim $35,910.00 in fees for a total of 119.7 hours at a billing rate of $300/hour. This was for the entire action from Defendants’ first response through trial.

Courts apply a lodestar method to calculate reasonable attorneys’ fees. Meister v. U.C. Regents (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 437, 448-49. The Court determines a lodestar figure based on a careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved. Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25. A reasonable fee is determined in the trial court’s discretion. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1084. To determine reasonable attorneys’ fees, the Court should consider the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and employed in handling the matter, the attention given, the success of the attorney’s efforts, the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed. Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim (1996) 42 Cal. App. 4th 628, 659.

Overall, the time spent is reasonable for this matter. Counsel’s hourly rate, too, is reasonable for an attorney of his experience.

2. Objection to Statement of Decision and Judgment/Motion to Correct Clerical Error

Defendants and Cross-Complainants’ motion to correct the Statement of Decision and Judgment entered 4/10/14 to show a total damages award of $29,177.13 instead of $22,392.51 is granted as to the Judgment. Defendants and Cross-Complainants are to submit a proposed amended judgment.

Code Civ. Proc. Section 634 and CRC 3.1590 provide a procedure for a party to object to, and seek amendment of, a statement of decision. A court may amend its statement of decision after it receives objections from affected parties so long as final judgment has not yet been entered. Bay World Trading, Ltd. v. Nebraska Beef, Inc. (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 135, 141.

Here, Judgment has already been entered. It was entered concurrently with the Statement of Decision.

Under Code Civ. Proc. Section 473(d), on its own motion or the motion of a party, the court may correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or order and may set aside any void judgment or order. Code Civ. Proc. Section 473(d). The court also has inherent power to correct its judgment. In re Tobias (1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 1031, 1034 (noting inherent power to correct clerical error in judgment). Clerical error is correctable at any time. Marriage of Kaufman, 101 Cal. App. 3d at 151. Where clerical error is shown, the judgment is corrected nunc pro tunc. Ames v. Paley (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 668, 673.

The court agrees that $6,785.62 remained unpaid on the May 2012 invoice, that amount is attributable to the electricity bill for which Plaintiff was responsible, and that amount has not already been accounted for the in the $22,392.51 award made by the court.