Case Number: SC092747    Hearing Date: August 22, 2014    Dept: M

Tentative Ruling
Kenne v. Stennis
SC092747

Plaintiff Kathleen A. Kenne, an attorney, represented appellant Zelma R. Stennis, an elderly widow, for approximately two years in unlawful detainer actions. Plaintiff sued Zelma and her son, movant Kevin P. Stennis, also an attorney, to collect her fees and costs. After a jury ruled in Kevin’s favor and the trial court granted him fees pursuant to B&P 6204(d), Plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff lost the appeal. Kevin now seeks an award of attorney’s fees on appeal pursuant to B&P 6204(d) of $15,500.00, and costs of $3,117.75.
Plaintiff seeks fees based upon the following:
1. B&P 6204(d) grants the Court discretion to award fees to the prevailing party;
2. Kevin Stennis prevailed at trial and on appeal;
3. Statutory authorization of fees incurred in trial necessarily includes fees incurred on appeal citing Marcos v. Board of Retirment of County of Los Angeles Employees’ Retirement Ass’n (1990) 51 C 3d 924, 927, Imperial Bank v. Pim Electric, Inc.
33 CA 4th 540, 557 and Carter v. Cohen (2010) 118 CA 4th 1038, 1053;
4. Plaintiff filed a declaration outlining the time and expense for the fees incurred.

Defendant opposes the fees based on the following:
1. B&P 6204(d) authorizes fees for trial only;
2. The remittitur did not specify the Plaintiff was entitled to fees;
3. The Defendant waived his rights to fees because he filed the motion on the 21st day which was untimely; and
4. The fees requested are excessive and unreasonable based upon the “two short and procedurally defective briefs”.

GRANTED:

Having read and considered the moving papers, the court tentatively granted pursuant to B&P section 6204(d) and rules as follows:

1. Section 6204(d) provides: “The party seeking a trial after [mandatory fee] arbitration shall be the prevailing party if that party obtains a judgment more favorable than that provided by the arbitration award, and in all other cases the other party shall be the prevailing party. The prevailing party may, in the discretion of the court, be entitled to an allowance for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the trial after arbitration, which allowance shall be fixed by the court….”;
2. Kevin Stennis prevailed at trial and was awarded fees pursuant to B&P section 6204(d);
3. Kevin Stennis prevailed on appeal;
4. Attorney fees on appeal are ordinarily recoverable only if authorized by statute. (Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs 2, ¶ 14:113, pp. 14-19 to 14-20, and cases there cited.) Statutory authorization for the recovery of attorney fees incurred in trial court proceedings necessarily includes attorney fees incurred on appeal unless the statute specifically provides otherwise. ( Id., at ¶ 14:114, p. 14-20.) cited in Imperial Bank, supra, at page 557. See also Marcos, supra, at page 927 wherein the Supreme Court stated the “general principle that statutes authorizing attorney fee awards in lower tribunals include attorney fees incurred on appeals of decisions from those lower tribunals.”;
5. “The judge has discretion in determining what constitutes reasonable attorney’s fees. The judge should consider the time the attorney has spent on the case, and the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and employed, the attention given, the success of failure, and other circumstances of the case.” Serrano v Priest (1977) 20 C 3d 25, 49, Nightingale v Hyundai Motor Am. (1994) 31 CA 4th 99, 104;
6. The court has considered the following factors: the complexity of the case, the number of parties, the extent of discovery required, the reasonableness of the time allotted to the various tasks specified in the attorney’s billing records, the amount of the fees claimed relative to the case, the extent to which the party’s litigation objectives were achieved, whether the hourly fee claimed is within the range of fees typically charged by other attorneys in the community, and the attorney’s expertise and experience; and
7. The court will award attorney’s fees of $15,500.00;
8. Kevin Stennis also seeks costs of $3,117.75 via a costs bill filed on September 3, 2013. On September 23, 2014, Plaintiff moved to strike or tax that costs bill. Unfortunately, the Court cannot locate the motion; nor has it located the opposition thereto filed by Defendant on January 17, 2014;
9. Motion to strike or tax is continued to December 18, 2014, in this department, at 8:30 a.m.;
10. The Court will discuss with counsel a continued hearing date and the manner in which copies of the aforementioned missing briefs are to be submitted. Normally, the Court would request the submission of a courtesy binder, but due to the unbelievable level of acrimony between counsel, and their habit of throwing accusations of misconduct at each other, unfortunately, another method may be required; and
11. Clerk to give notice.