VARSITY PARK ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs JAMES D ANGLIN, et al.

The amounts requested are supported by the request for judicial notice, declaration of counsel, and 13 exhibits, including invoices (Ex. 12).

2023CUCO007971: VARSITY PARK ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs JAMES D ANGLIN, et al.

Discussion: As a preliminary matter Plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover attorney fees and costs on appeal under Civil Code §§ 1717(a) and 5975. The underlying CC&Rs qualify as a contract, and ¶ 17.4.5 is the attorneys fee provision. The Court of Appeal awarded costs, the remittitur was issued on April 23, 2026, and this motion was filed on June 2, 2026. A costs memo for $834.90 was filed on June 2, 2026, and there was no objection or opposition filed. A. Lodestar standard Therefore, the only issue before the Court is the amount of attorney fees.

The Court has broad discretion in determining the amount of the Association’s reasonable attorney’s fees. (PCLM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “Under the lodestar method, attorney fees are calculated by first multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate of compensation.” (Chacon v. Litke (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1259.) A reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for comparable or similar professional legal services. (Graciano v.

Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 155-156.) As articulated by the California Supreme Court: Under Serrano III, the lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (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. [Citation].

The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132; see also PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) “[T]he parties seeking fees and costs . . . . ‘bear[] the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.’ [Citation]. To that end, the court may require defendants to produce records sufficient to provide ‘”a proper basis for determining how much time was spent on particular claims.”’ [Citation].

The court also may properly reduce compensation on account of any failure to maintain appropriate time records.” (ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1020.) B. Application The hourly rates charged by Plaintiff’s counsel are reasonable if they are within the prevailing rates for similar work in the local legal community. (Margolin v. Regional Planning Com. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.) The determination of the reasonableness of the rates is within the sound discretion of the Court: It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court.[Citations.]

The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. [Citation.] The trial court may make its own determination of the value of the services contrary to, or without the necessity for, expert testimony. [Citations.] The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors,

2023CUCO007971: VARSITY PARK ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION vs JAMES D ANGLIN, et al.

including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.) The Court finds that the hourly rates claimed by Plaintiff's counsel, $345 per hour, increasing to $385 per hour beginning in February 2025, are reasonable on their face in light of counsel's experience and are consistent with the rates previously awarded to Plaintiff's counsel in connection with the motion for attorney's fees arising from the trial proceedings.

The Court has carefully reviewed the highlighted billing entries submitted in support of the motion. With the exception of the $154 in charges that Plaintiff acknowledges were inadvertently included and has conceded should be excluded, the Court finds no improper, excessive, or inappropriate billing. Contrary to Defendants' assertions, the challenged entries reflect work reasonably and necessarily performed in connection with the successful appeal. Excluding the conceded charges, Plaintiff seeks compensation for 78.1 hours of appellate work, together with 15 hours reasonably anticipated for preparation of and appearance on the present motion.

The record reflects that 14.6 of those anticipated hours had already been incurred before the hearing, exclusive of time spent preparing for and attending the hearing itself. The Court finds no indication that counsel inflated the time expended. Nor have Defendants identified any specific billing entry that warrants reduction or exclusion. Defendants' objections are generalized, unsupported, and unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Court declines to reduce either the hourly rates or the hours claimed.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of attorney's fees requested, less the conceded $154 reduction, including compensation for the additional 0.4 hours reasonably anticipated for the hearing, which the Court finds were in fact incurred and, if anything, exceeded the 15 hours originally estimated at the time the motion was filed. The Court likewise finds no basis to reduce the costs requested. Defendants have failed to identify any cost that was improperly incurred or unrecoverable.

The claimed costs were reasonably incurred, paid, and remain undisputed as to their nature. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of recoverable costs requested. Based on the above, the Court GRANTS attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $36,516.40.

3