Case Number: KC067245 Hearing Date: March 06, 2018 Dept: O

Lincoln Pacific Builders v. Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc. (KC067245)

Cross-Defendant Lincoln Pacific Builder’s MOTION FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL

Respondent: Cross-Complainant Elecnor Belco Electric

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendant Lincoln Pacific Builder’s motion for costs and attorney fees on appeal is GRANTED with a reduction of 15.75 hours.

Cross-Defendant Lincoln Pacific Builders, Inc. moves for attorney’s fees on appeal in the sum of $16,061.25 and costs of $510.00.

In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. (CC 1717(a).) Contractually authorized fees are recoverable as costs on appeal under CCP 1033.5. (Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux, 154 Cal.App.4th 918.)

To enable the trial court to determine whether attorney fees should be awarded and in what amount, an attorney should present: (1) evidence, documentary and oral, of the services actually performed; and (2) expert opinion, by the applicant and other lawyers, as to what would be a reasonable fee for such services. (Martino v. Denevi (1986) 182 Cal. App. 3d 553, 558-59.) In many cases, however, the trial court will be aware of the nature and extent of the attorney’s services from its observation of the trial proceedings and the pretrial and discovery proceedings reflected in the file. (Id. at 559.)

In California, testimony of an attorney as to the number of hours worked on a particular case is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records. (Id.) If the items appear to be proper charges, the verified memorandum is prima facie evidence that the costs, expenses, and services therein listed were necessarily incurred by the prevailing party, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that the items are unreasonable. (Decoto Sch. Dist. of Alameda County v. M & S Tile Co. (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 310, 316-17.)

Here, Cross-Defendant was the prevailing party in the appeal by Cross-Complainant Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc.

Elecnor challenges the reasonableness of Lincoln’s attorney’s fees. In Reply, Attorney Ravis declares that he charged the rate of $225 per hour, and spent 69.75 hours on all aspects of the appeal; approximately 19 hours were spent on appeal activities other than actual legal research and drafting of Respondent’s Brief. (Ravis Decl., Pars. 1-2.) Ravis also declares that his client, Lincoln Chan, recently finished law school and desired to be actively involved in the opposition strategy, which required more discussion of theories and legal arguments that might ordinarily occur with a law client. (Id. at Par. 1.)

The court finds that the attorney rate of $225 per hour is reasonable. However, the court also finds that 50.75 hours spent on legal research and drafting is excessive. The appeal was directed to this court’s grant of summary judgment on 6/29/16. The issues were thoroughly addressed in this court’s ruling, as well as in the parties’ briefs. The Court of Appeal’s opinion addressed the very same issues that were addressed at the summary judgment hearing. Therefore, it appears that the additional 50.75 hours spent on legal research and drafting is excessive. Based upon the court’s experience, at most, Plaintiff’s counsel should have spent no more than 35 hours on the brief.

Accordingly, motion is GRANTED with a reduction of 15.75 hours.