Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24AHCP00068, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24AHCP00068    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CEMENT MASONS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, et al.,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

FEHOKO CONCRETE, INC.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  24AHCP00068

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

April 29, 2024

 

)

 

 

Petitioners Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons Southern California Health and Welfare Fund, Board of Trustees of Eleven Counties Cement Masons Vacation Savings Plan, Board of Trustees of Cement Masons Joint Apprenticeship Trust, and Board of Trustees Cement Masons Southern California Individual Retirement Account (Defined Contribution) Trust (collectively, “Petitioners”) request the Court issue an order confirming the arbitration award (“Award”) issued by Mark Burstein on October 19, 2023 against respondent Fehoko Concrete, Inc. (“Respondent”).

Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct, or vacate the award. (Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1285.) The procedural requirements of a petition to confirm an arbitration award require the petition to:

“(a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement.

 

(b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

 

(c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.”

 

(Code of Civ. Proc., §1285.4.)

Here, Petitioners seek entry of judgment in the principal sum of $151,398.41, consisting of fringe benefit contributions in the amount of $92,995.86, liquidated damages in the amount of $48,877.96, accrued interest in the amount of $8,407.92, inter-office expenses in the amount of $250.00, and arbitrators’ fees in the amount of $866.67. Additionally, Petitioners seek: interest in the amount of $3,923.66, calculated at the per diem rate of $25.48 from October 18, 2023 to March 20, 2024, and continuing to accrue until the sum of $92,995.86 is paid, attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,460.00, and costs in the amount of $437.25, incurred or to be incurred by Petitioners in enforcing the Award.

Respondent did not oppose the Petition. Accordingly, the Court confirms the Award and proceeds to address Petitioners’ request for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

“The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.”  (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) “The basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.)

Petitioners’ counsel, Harrison Levy, declares that his law firm’s blended rate is $300 per hour for partners and associates and $115 for paralegal services. (Motion, Levy Decl., ¶ 6.) He states that he spent 2.3 hours preparing a written demand and drafting the instant petition, which was attached to the demand sent to Respondent. Kathryn Halford, a partner, spent 2.9 hours reviewing and editing the demand and the petition. Laura Taylor, a paralegal, spent .5 hours preparing the exhibits. (Levy Decl., ¶ 4.)  When Respondent did not respond to the demand, Mr. Levy and Ms. Halford each spent 0.4 hours and 0.5 hours, respectively, reviewing and finalizing the petition while Ms. Taylor spent 0.5 hours preparing the petition for filing. (Levy Decl., ¶ 5.) After the petition was filed, Mr. Levy spent 4.6 hours preparing the instant motion and accompanying papers. (Levy Decl., ¶ 6.) Ms. Taylor spent 1 hour revising the motion and preparing the exhibits. (Ibid.) Ms. Halford spent 0.8 hours reviewing and editing the motion and accompanying papers. In sum, Petitioners have incurred the reasonable amount of $3,560 in fees for professional services and $437.25 in costs.

Mr. Levy declares that he expects to spend an additional 3 hours preparing for, traveling to, and attending the hearing on this motion and requests an additional $900 in anticipated fees. The Court denies the request for these fees because they have not actually been incurred.

In conclusion, the Court confirms the Arbitration Award and enters judgment in accordance with the Award. The Court also awards attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $3,997.25.

 

Dated this 29th day of April, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.