Motion for Attorney’s Fees
CASE NUMBER: 26CH-0209631 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Attorney’s Fees: Respondent Mark Farmer moves for recovery of attorney’s fees. Petitioner Candilyn Perry was timely served with the motion by mail. However, the Opposition was untimely filed. The Opposition was filed on June 26, 2026 and a Supplemental Declaration was filed on June 29, 2026. The Opposition was due on June 22, 2026. CCP § 1005(b). This Court presided over the entirety of this case, including the trial, and recalls the underlying facts. Because the Opposition does not change the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will consider the late-filed Opposition. Respondent may still present oral argument at the time of the hearing.
CCP § 527.6 governs civil restraining orders. Subsection (s) provides that the prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to this section may be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees, if any. CCP § 527.6(s). “[A] prevailing defendant can recover attorney fees in an action for injunctive relief against harassment, even if the action was brought in good faith and is not frivolous, if the trial court decides in its discretion to award such fees.” Krug v. Maschmeier (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 796, 798. “The recovery of attorney fees under subdivision (s) of section 527.6 is committed to the trial court’s discretion.”
Wash v. Banda-Wash (2025) 108 Cal. App. 5th 561, 568. In determining the amount of attorney's fees to which a litigant is entitled, an experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his or her court. Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 738, 752
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Respondent is the prevailing party here, which means the Court has discretion to award fees and costs. The Court recalls the trial in this matter and exercises its discretion to award fees and costs. Counsel for Respondent requests $7,640. However, the declaration of counsel is insufficient to warrant the amount requested. Timothy M. Prentiss II declared that “I incurred attorney’s fees as follows” and goes on to list 5 hours of clerical work billed at $150 per hour, 18.2 hours of paralegal work billed at $250 per hour, and 5.5 hours of legal work with 2.7 hours being billed at $400 per hour and 2.8 hours being billed at $425 per hour.
While it is possible to include paralegal fees in an award of attorney fees, clerical or administrative tasks are not recoverable. Collins v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 140. No billing records have been provided to support the paralegal or attorney time. No evidence has been provided to support the hourly rates requested. Therefore, the Court is only able to award attorney’s fees based on what the Court can tell from the file.
The trial in this matter was March 19, 2026. The trial started at 1:30 p.m. and court was adjourned at 2:59 p.m. The trial was heard at the same time as an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions that issued to Respondent and counsel for failure to file CH-800 as ordered on February 9, 2026. Respondent appeared on one prior occasion to trial which was trial readiness on February 2, 2026. The only other appearances were post trial when Respondent
appeared on April 20, 2026 and June 1, 2026 for hearing on prior Motions for Attorney’s Fees that were denied without prejudice for being untimely filed. Other than motions seeking attorney’s fees, Respondent has only filed the CH-120 and CH-800. Based on the evidence before the Court, the Court finds that $2,000 is a reasonable sum for attorney’s fees in this matter. This is comprised of five hours of attorney time at the rate of $400 per hour. The Court declines to award any paralegal time as sufficient evidence has not been provided.
The motion is GRANTED and fees will be awarded to Respondent in the amount of $2,000. Respondent did not provide a proposed Order as required by Local Rule of Court 5.17(D). Respondent is ordered to submit a proposed order consistent with the Court’s ruling here.
SPITSEN, ET AL. VS. NOR CAL OIL INC.