30-11-500576

Motion for Attorney Fees ($34,323.50)

This case involves the transfer of legal ownership of a condominium in Laguna Woods. The principal issue at trial was who owned Unit 353, and was thus responsible for unpaid monthly assessments. A bench trial was conducted in C24 in August of 2012. Following presentation of evidence, the court found that G8 REO Fund (“G8”) had properly transferred ownership of Unit 353 to Bauer Properties, and prevailed in the action. In December of 2012, the court granted G8’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to the relevant provision (para 200 in the Purchase and Sale Agreement. The judgment subsequently went up on appeal, and was returned affirmed via remittitur issued on 02/21/14. G8 now seeks to amend the judgment to include attorney fees incurred in the appeal, as well as modest litigation costs and accrued interest to date. There is no opposition filed.

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1032(b) and 1033.5(a)(10) collectively provide that the prevailing party in a civil action may recover, as a matter of right, attorney’s fees when authorized by contract or statute. This court has previously held, and there is no genuine dispute, that:

1. G8 (collectively the prior owner and property manager) is the prevailing party for all purposes;

2. The attorney fee clause (at para 20) specifically covers fees incurred for an appeal;

3. The DCA specifically awarded G8 its costs on appeal, which by statute and case law includes attorneys fees when authorized by contract.

All that remains is assessing the lodestar.

The method and manner of calculating what fees are recoverable is generally left to the agreement of the parties. CCP §1021. Where an agreement for fees exists, but the method is not defined, courts will weight various factors to reach a “reasonable” amount to award as fees – commonly referred to as the lodestar. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095. Courts begin with an independent review of the evidence to determine the reasonableness of the hours actually spent litigating the matter and to assess whether there was padding, over-staffing, duplication or marked inefficiency. Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 272. Other factors courts consider include the development of the case, the complexity of the issues, and how long the court estimates it should have taken to perform the services. Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249. After the courts determine the number of hours reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation, the next step is to determine an appropriate hourly rate for the work performed, based on market trends in the particular region for that kind of work. Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 603, 619; Chacon v. Litke (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1260. Even in the absence of opposition papers, trial courts are presumably required to conduct an independent review to pinpoint the appropriate lodestar.

Regarding the time allocation, roughly 85 attorney hours were dedicated to the appeal: preparing briefs, reviewing materials, oral argument, this motion, etc. Although the briefs were not provided, it is assumed that the appeal included both pre-trial rulings made by Judge Chaffee and trial rulings made by Judge Hunt. Since there is no opposition, and nothing to counteract this assumption, the time allocation was “reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation.” See CCP §1033.5(c)(2).

Regarding the hourly rate, this court has already concluded on G8’s original (also unopposed) attorney fee motion that the hourly rates claimed were reasonable. Those rates have since increased slightly. Most of the work on appeal was performed by the $335/hr associate rather than the $550/hr partner – which is imminently reasonable for appellate attorneys in Orange County.

Additional attorney fees in the amount of $34,323.50 are reasonable and shall be added to an amended judgment.

G8 also requests litigation costs of $495.00. A memorandum of costs was filed on 02/26/14, and no motion to tax or strike was filed. As such, this amount is deemed proper.

G8 also requests accrued interest of $13,615.00. A declaration of accrued interest was filed on 02/26/14, and no motion to tax or strike was filed. G8 provides evidence by declaration that no portion of the judgment has been satisfied. As such, this amount is deemed proper.

Counsel for G8 to submit amended judgment reflecting additional fees, costs and interest to date.