Fair Sky Properties v. Glenn Grego

“[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. California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. [Citation.] The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work. [Citation.] The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. [Citation.]” (PLCM, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1095.)

Plaintiffs contend that the hours expended were reasonable and necessary. Two attorneys from the firm of Farmer & Ready worked on the case. (See Declaration of Paul F. Ready (P. Ready Decl.); Declaration of Grace S. Ready (G. Ready Decl.). Paul Ready billed his time at a rate of $450 per hour through December 31, 2025, and $495 per hour after January 1, 2026. (P. Ready Decl., ¶ 6.) After passing the California Bar Exam but prior to being sworn in as an attorney, Grace Ready assisted with legal research and preparation of documents at the rate of $150 per hour. Grace Ready was sworn in to the bar in May 2025; beginning on June 1, 2025, she billed at the rate of $300 per hour, and effective January 1, 2026, she billed at $325 per hour.1 (G. Ready Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)

Plaintiff’s counsel provides billing records reflecting the time they spent on this matter. (G. Ready Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. A; see also Ex. A to Mtn. [memorandum of costs], Ex. B to Mtn. [billing records]; Supp. G. Ready Decl., Ex. A [supplemental billing records].)

Plaintiff’s counsel details the work done on the case, including extensive meeting and conferring with regard to Defendants’ discovery responses, a mandatory settlement conference for which Plaintiff submitted a detailed, required settlement memorandum, which Defendants failed to submit. Defendants also did not appear at the conference. Plaintiff’s counsel contend that they was required to expend substantial time not because Plaintiff over-litigated the matter, but because they consistently had to address incomplete discovery responses, repeated procedural deficiencies, missed settlement obligations, last-minute pretrial submissions, and ongoing communications that required review and follow-up in order to keep the case moving toward resolution.

In opposition, Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s entitlement to fees under the lease. However, that matter has already been decided and the Court ruled that Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable fees.

Defendants also contend that the fees are duplicative and that the action belonged in small claims court. Plaintiff responds that under Code of Civil Procedure sections 116.220 and 116.221, a business entity such as Plaintiff is subject to a jurisdictional limit of $6,250 in small claims court. Plaintiff's claims exceeded that amount.

Defendants identify the following charges they contend are excessive, unreasonable and unbillable fees in the nature of education Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendants’ specific objections are as follows::

1 Any reservation about the rate of $300-$325 per hour for a newly admitted attorney was eliminated by the quality of work and manner in which she handled the trial. Counsel was prepared, efficient and professional.

• 8/13/25, 2.1 hours billed for drafting the settlement memorandum per guidelines • 9/23/25, “over 30 minutes” billed for reading a 4-page Case Management Statement o The time entry is actually for.3 hours, which is eighteen minutes. • 11/4/25, “1 Hour and 20 minutes” for reviewing the case record o The full entry is “Reviewed case record and all Discovery Responses to assess trial strategy and evaluate necessary pre-trial filings.” • 11/5/25, 20 minutes for reviewing a Case Management Order o The full entry is “Reviewed Case Management Order and research local rules re short cause trial filings” • 12/2/25, the motion in limine is billed twice o There is one entry on 12/2/25 to revise the motion in limine to refine evidentiary arguments and a separate entry on 12/3/25 to finalize the motion in limine • Five hours and fifty minutes billed for preparing the trial brief and statement of case; 12/8/25, an hour and thirty minutes for revision of the trial brief o The Court cannot identify the specific entries objected to by Defendants as there are multiple that represent work on various parts of the brief and statement of case • 12/9/25, over two hours for preparing cross-examination outlines o This appears to reference a 12/11/25 entry, the full entry of which is “Prepared cross and direct examination outlines for Trial witnesses” • 12/11/25, over one hour and forty minutes charged for preparing opening statement for trial o This appears to reference a 12/16/25 entry for 1.4 hours (an hour and 24 minutes) that was to prepare the opening and closing statements for trial • 12/19/25, over one hour and forty minutes charge for trial pre and examination and strategy o The full entry is for 1.6 hours (one hour and 36 minutes) for “Trial prep; examination strategy prep; review of exhibits and foundation; review pleadings and all prior filings” • 1/2/26, fifty-five minutes charge to review the motion in limine response o The full entry is “Review response to 12/29 Motion in Limine, Witness Declaration, and additional Exhibits” • 12/19/26, forty minutes reviewing the lease. o This entry was on 2/19/26, was for.6 hours, and the full entry was “Review random Lease sent by Ramey and follow up telephone call re purpose of document”

Plaintiff notes that Defendants did not identify any purportedly duplicative entries where both attorneys billed for the same task. Moreover, Plaintiff retained the firm of Farmer & Ready and having multiple attorneys work on the case is reasonable. After the matter was set for trial, Grace Ready assumed responsibility for trial preparation and was the sole attorney who appeared for Plaintiff at both trial settings and who tried the case. Grace Ready’s rate is significantly lower than Paul Ready’s rate.

Plaintiff contends that the entries identified by Defendants are all reasonable. Plaintiff’s counsel explains that the trial brief required legal research, analysis, citation review, and integration of the evidentiary record, including numerous supporting exhibits. They contend that Defendants incorrectly assert that Plaintiff billed twice for a motion in limine and that the billing records reflect separate entries on different dates for distinct tasks associated with revising evidentiary arguments and finalizing the motion prior to filing. They further contend that the time spent preparing witness examinations and opening and closing statements are standard components of thorough trial preparation.

Plaintiff also contends that it is entitled to recover fees incurred responding the opposition. Compensation for all hours reasonably spent includes those necessary to establish and defend a fee claim. (See Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621; City of Los Angeles v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern California (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 290, 308-309; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 1002.) Plaintiff seeks an additional $1,430 in fees and $91.27 in costs since filing the motion. (See Supplemental G. Ready Decl., ¶¶ 5, 7.)

The Court has reviewed the billing records and considered Defendants’ objections. Considering the briefs, declarations and exhibits, and given the Court’s experience presiding over trial, the Court finds the entries to be fair and reasonably incurred. This includes the supplemental billing records since the date of the motion. The Court further finds counsel’s rates to be reasonable.

Plaintiff seeks $26,375 in total fees and $954.33 in costs, for a total award of $27,329.33.

As to costs, this represents $863.06 in costs up until the date of the motion (G. Ready Decl., Ex. A), plus $91.27 in costs for filing fees, postage and photocopying expenses incurred after the motion was filed. (Supp. G. Ready Decl., ¶ 7.)

As to fees, this represents a total of $24,945 2 in incurred fees through the date of the motion, based on 79.7 combined hours from Paul Ready and Grace Ready. (G. Ready Decl., Ex. A.)

The supplemental billing records show a total of $26,375 fees, based on 84.1 total combined hours from Paul Ready and Grace Ready. (Supp. G. Ready Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff incurred an additional $1,430 in additional fees for the work of Grace Ready after the filing of the motion.3 (Supp. G. Ready Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. A; $26,375-$24,945 = $1,430; 84.1 hours – 79.7 hours = 4.4 hours x 325 per hour = $1,430.)

Plaintiff’s request is supported by the billing records. The Court’s one concern, however, is that the entries on the supplemental bill, when totaled, add up to only $1,365 from 4.2 hours. Thus, .2 in entries are omitted from the bill.

2 Plaintiff’s motion represents that the total fees incurred as of the date of the motion was $25,808.06. However, reviewing the billing records, that amount includes both the total incurred fees ($24,945) and costs ($863.06.) (G. Ready Decl., Ex. A.) 3 All time incurred since filing the motion was by Grace Ready at a rate of $325 per hour. (Supp. G. Ready Decl., Ex. A.)

ORDER (PROPOSED)

Plaintiff shall come prepared to explain the missing.2 hour entry in the supplemental billing records.

Upon explanation, the Court intends to grant Plaintiff’s motion and award Plaintiff $26,375 in total fees and $954.33 in costs, for a total award of $27,329.33 against Defendants.

5