Order Submitted Matter

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 11, 2021

10 ll 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i T-K i mu I L E ‘ FEBuszozz Ierk of the Court oi Sama Clara -, i Co n o! CA County DEPU' SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE O COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CASE NO.: 21CH00986| BRIAN TRAN’ _ , DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN Petmoner, PART RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES vs. MICHAEL HAN, Respondent. Decision 0n Submitted Matter This matter came on for hearing on December 21 , 202 l, in Department 4 of the Superior Court, Commissioner Erik S. Johnson presiding. At the hearing, counsel for both Petitioner and Respondent appeared, arguments were made and the matter was taken under submission for written decision. Having considered the moving papers, opposition, reply, attached declarations and arguments of counsel and the file herein, and for the reasons noted below, the court GRANTS IN PART, Respondent’s request for attorney fees. A hearing on the merits was heard on June 4. 2021 and June l4, 2021 and the matter was continued for ruling to August 3, 2021. After consideration of the trial evidence, testimony and argument. the request for restraining orders was denied for the reasons stated on the record. Respondent now seeks an award of $35, l 80.00 in attorney fees as the prevailing party. Petitioner opposes the motion on several grounds: l) the CHRO was not made for any frivolous or unreasonable motive; 2) the time expended pursuing discovery and defending against a successful motion to quash was unreasonable and unnecessary, and; 3) The request includes ‘1' oi 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 l9 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 duplicative work (Le. “padding”) and the number of hours spent was not commensurate with the complexity, difficulty or novelty of the matter. ' To avail himself ofthe statutory attorney fees provisions, the litigant must be the prevailing party in an action brought under CCP § 527.6: “The prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to this section may be awarded court costs and attomey’s fees, if any.” If the litigant is the prevailing party under this section, the next question is whether the requested fees are in fact “reasonable.” The prevailing party is limited to only those fees which are “reasonable” and the amount of the fee is subject to the sound discretion of the court. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095; Akins v. Enterprise RenI-A-Car C0. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th l 127, 1 134. “Absent special circumstances rendering the award unjust, an attorney fee should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent, including those relating solely to the fee.” Ketchum v. Moses (200]) 24 Cal.App.4‘h 1 122, I I33. In ruling on Respondent’s motion, the Court employed the lodestar method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales. Inc. (2006) I44 Cal.App.4th I40, 154.The lodestar method of calculation applies to a statutory award of attorney fees unless the statute provides for another method. Ketchum v. Moses supra at l I35. Lodestar is the basic fee for “comparable legal services in the community [and] it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (l) 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.” Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc, supra at 154-1 55. Lastly, but not to understate the point, trial courts properly may use equitable considerations to reduce the lodestar amount of attorney fees, including on the basis that certain fees were unnecessary. EnPalm, LLC v. The Teitler Family Trust (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 778. As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that Petitioner's retained attorney Kathryn Curry’s billable rate of$ 550.00 per hour is reasonable based on her level ofexperience and the l Petitioner spends considerable time re-evalualing the merits of lhe case. arguing that the Petition \ms brought in good faith and with credible evidence supporting the facts alleged therein. However. it is indisputable that Respondent is the “prevailing party“ subject to an award of reasonable anomey fees pursuant to CCP § 527.6(5). The merits ofthe case are mostly irrelevant to the instant motion. The Court notes the distinction between a requesx for attorney fees under Section 527.6 and Section l28.5, the latter requiring a showing ofbad faith. or frivolous conduct. The instant motion is brought solely under Section 527.6(5). 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 jjf customary hourly rates in the local legal community. The rate charged to her client is well within industry norms for an attorney of similar experience, training and years of practice. Further, under the lodestar approach and in consideration of several factors, the requested fees are reasonable, with the exceptions and adjustments noted below. First, the Court notes that nearly all of the time listed for attorney James Jacobs consists of inter-office communications with his business partner, and attomey of record Kathryn Curry, and review of Ms. Curry’s work, including her pleadings and emails to opposing counsel. Certainly, Respondent is entitled to his fees spent on two attorneys, assuming the time spent was reasonable and not duplicative, inefficient or unnecessary. However, Mr. Jacobs work on the civil harassment matter was rather superfluous, redundant and mostly unnecessary. The Court concludes that the time expended by Mr. Jacobs was unreasonable and declines to award Respondent fees for this time. Second, Respondent requests fees for time spent conducting discovery and defending against a related (and successful) motion to quash. It is unreasonable t0 award fees on an unsuccessful defense to a motion that was granted and the attempts to set a deposition underlying that motion. Therefore, the Court declines to award fees for time expended on the motion and underlying attempts to take Petitioner’s deposition. Therefore, and based on the foregoing, Respondent’s attorney fees motion is GRANTED IN PART, in the total amount of $26,770.00. The adjusted amount of attorney fees reflects a reduction for the work performed by James Jacobs. which - based on the billing entries, are duplicative and redundant. The fees are further adjusted downward for the time spent unsuccessfully defending the motion to quash. Petitioner is ordered to pay the total award of attorney fees of $26,770.00 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 4, 2022 EWJOHNSON SUPERIOR COURT COMMISSIONER SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I w» . , DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE L L '~ 191 NORTH FIRST STREE'I SANjosE, CALIFORNIA 95113 F CIVIL DIVISION EB 09 2022 RE: Brian Tran vs Michael Han Case Number: 21CH009861 PROOF OF SERVICE DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART RESPONDENT'S MOTION 0 R ATTORNEYS' FEES was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below. If you, a pa'ty 'epresented bv you o' a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator's office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court's TDD line (408) 882-2690 or the Voice/TDD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922 DECLARATION 0F SERVICE BY MAIL: | declare that I served this noxice by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope. addressed to each person mow name As snown below, am. by cepositing me envewpe w.th pcs.age fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at San Jose, CA on FebrLary 09, 2022. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Stacie Marshall, Deputy‘ cc: Dmitry Stadlin Stadlin Marinho LLP 1 H N Market Sheet Sale 300 SAN JOSE CA 95113 James. L Jacobs GCA Law Partners [LP 2570 W El Camino Real #400 Mountain View CA 94040 Kafiryn LTecifia Curry 2570 W El Camino Real Ste 400 Mountain View CA 94040 cw-9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE