Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: LAM16K11483, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: LAM16K11483    Hearing Date: April 26, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,388.46

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP §§ 685.040, 685.070)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $2,388.46

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of April 24, 2023    [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 24, 2023    [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

            On November 2, 2012, the Justice Court of Maricopa-Stanfield in the County of Pinal entered a Judgment (the “Judgment”) in favor of Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendants Jermayne Cooper and Jeannette Morgan (collectively, “Defendants”). The Judgment was entered in the amount of $1,995.00, which included $500.00 in attorneys’ fees. (Request for Judicial Notice “RJN, ” Exh. 2, ¶¶ 4, 6.) The Judgment also included “all reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff after the entry of this judgment in collecting the amounts awarded herein.” (Id., ¶ 7.) On February 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees seeking a total of $4,975.50. On April 18, 2018, this Court granted that motion in the reduced amount of $4,895.50. (4/18/18 Minute Order, p 1.)

            On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed another motion attorneys’ fees and costs and a request for judicial notice. On January 22, 2020, this Court granted that motion in the full amount of $4,847.73.

            On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys fees and costs (the “Motion”) seeking $2,388.46, as well as a request for judicial notice. No opposition was filed as of April 24, 2023.

II.              Judicial Notice

            Plaintiff asks that the Court take judicial notice of (1) an unofficial copy of the relevant pages of the Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of Maricopa Meadows recorded in Arizona, (2) a copy of the Judgment entered in the Maricopa-Stanfield Justice Court, County of Pinal, State of Arizona entitled “Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association v. Jermayne Cooper and Jeannette Morgan,” case number 2004-019765, and (3) a copy of the Sister-State Judgment filed and entered in the Los Angeles Superior Court, case number 16K11483.

            The Court may take judicial notice of recorded documents. (See Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549 [disapproved of on other grounds by Black Sky Capital, LLC v. Cobb (2019) 7 Cal.5th 156].) However, Exhibit 1 is labeled as an unofficial copy, and there is no indication of its authenticity and reliability from the Arizona Recorder’s Office. Thus, the request for judicial notice as to Exhibit 1 is DENIED.

            Judicial notice may also be taken of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.” (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) Exhibits 2 and 3 are records of a state court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 2 and 3 is GRANTED.

III.            Legal Standard

The Court’s objective is to award attorneys’ fees at the fair market value based on the particular action. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “‘[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . .’” (Ketchum at 1134.) The lodestar method is based on several factors, as relevant to each particular case: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Id. at 1132.) “The ‘‘experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’’” (Ibid.) A negative modifier is appropriate when duplicative work is performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 685.070, subdivision (a) states in pertinent part: “The judgment creditor may claim under this section the following costs of enforcing a judgment: . . . (6) Attorney's fees, if allowed by Section 685.040.” Attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are expressly excluded unless otherwise provided by law. (Ibid.) Attorneys’ fees that are incurred in enforcing a judgment are collectible as costs “if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of section 1033.5,” which allows for attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040; Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A).)

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure, section 685.080 subdivision (b) requires that: “[t]he notice of motion shall describe the costs claimed, shall state their amount, and shall be supported by an affidavit of a person who has knowledge of the facts stating that to the person's best knowledge and belief the costs are correct, are reasonable and necessary, and have not been satisfied. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.”

IV.           Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to recover $2,388.46 in fees and costs for attempting to enforce and collect on its judgment against Jermayne Cooper and Jeannette Morgan, the debtors.

            As part of the collection efforts, Plaintiff’s counsel, B. Austin Baillio of Maxwell & Morgan, LLP (“M&M”) (i) reviewed the status of the judgement balance due to previous garnishment, (ii) searched for assets owned by the debtors to use to satisfy the judgment, (iii) drafted a memorandum of costs after judgment, (iv) obtained a new writ of execution, and (v) drafted this Motion. (Baillio Decl. ¶ 5). The Judgment in the underlying case awarded Plaintiff attorneys’ fees. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees in connection with the enforcement of its Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 685.070, subdivision (a)(6) and 685.040.

            Attorney’s Fees

            A court determining the number of hours reasonably expended on a case “must carefully review attorney documentation of hours expended.” (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1132.) In doing so, the court should exclude hours that “were not reasonably expended in pursuit of successful claims” (Harman v. City & County of San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal. App.4th 407, 417), “attorney time spent on services which produce no tangible benefit for the client,” (Meister v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 452), or hours that were otherwise “duplicative or excessive” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 161.).

            Plaintiff seeks a total of $ 1,980.00 for recovery efforts that took place from June 28, 2022 to December 9, 2023. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 17.) Baillio’s rate is $325 per hour. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 6.) Baillio spent 1.7 hours in collection efforts. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 7.) He charged one flat fee of $450.00 for working to obtain a writ of execution. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 7.) Baillio also requests fees for spending 1.9 hours on this Motion, which includes attending this hearing. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 14.) He incurred a $61.65 filing fee and $15 fee to appear telephonically. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 14.) Additionally, Baillio seeks $360.00 for work done by M&M's paralegals Irene Valles, Olivia Bray, Melissa Kloka, and Sari Morgan. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 9.) Valles, Bray, Kloka, and Morgan each have billing rates of $150.00 per hour and contributed a total of 2.4 hours. (Baillio Decl., ¶¶ 10-13.)

            The Court finds both Baillio’s and the support staff’s hours and billing rates reasonable.

            Costs

            Plaintiff also seeks costs incurred in the enforcement of the Judgment. Enforcement costs, other than attorneys’ fees, can be claimed by the judgment creditor as a matter of right under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.070. (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.070, subd. (a).) Judgment creditors can also recover other costs if, upon noticed motion, the Court determines that they were “reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 685.040; Code Civ. Proc., § 685.080; Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 635, 648.)

            Here, Plaintiff seeks a total of $408.46 in costs. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 18.) Costs include filing fees, mailing fees, investigative fees, and fees to electronically monitor the debtor’s account. (Baillio Decl., ¶ 18, Exh. A.) The Court finds these costs to be reasonable.

V.             Conclusion & Order

Accordingly, Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $2,388.46.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.