| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE §1717
May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 24 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 13 25-UDU-00407 PAULO DOS SANTOS, ET AL. VS. MICHELLE ROSAS, ET AL.
PAULO DOS SANTOS LAWRENCE W. FASANO MICHELLE ROSAS DAVID M. SLOAN
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE §1717
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court GRANTS defendant Michelle Rosas and Cuauhtemoc Rosas’ unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Defendants are the prevailing parties after a jury trial. They move pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 for attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to a contract providing for attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party. They seek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $88,830. Defendants also seek costs of $7,754.14 pursuant to a memorandum of costs filed February 23, 2026 against plaintiffs Paulo Dos Santos and Ronaldo Silva, jointly and severally.
After judgment, a party may file a memorandum of costs within fifteen days of date of service of notice of entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(a)(1). Here, notice of entry of judgment was filed on February 13, 2026 and defendants filed their memorandum of costs on February 23, 2026. Thus, the cost memorandum was timely.
If a party wants to challenge an item on the cost bill, the party must file a notion of motion to strike or to tax costs within fifteen days of the filing of the cost memorandum. (Id., subd. (b)(1).) Plaintiffs failed to file any motion to strike. Thus, the costs are awarded by operation of law. (See id., subd. (b)(4). The court notes it has also reviewed the costs and all costs claimed are statutory costs, whose amounts appear reasonable—there is no evidence to the contrary. Thus, the request for costs is granted.
As to the attorneys’ fees, the motion is timely. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702.) The sublease, which was the operative contract at trial, has an attorneys’ fees’ clause. (Sublease, p. 2, section “Defaults.”) As the prevailing party, defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees.
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?”
The court finds the fees reasonable. Attorney fees are ordinarily determined by the court pursuant to the “lodestar” method. Under the lodestar, a “reasonable” hourly rate is the prevailing rate charged by an attorney of similar skill and experience in the relevant community. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095 (PLCM Group); Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 (Ketchum); Tidrick v. FCA US LLC (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1147, 1157.) This court may adjust the lodestar amount based on various factors specific to the case to fix the attorney fees at fair market value for the services provided. (PLCM Group, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 1095-1096.) The factors include: “(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
May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 25 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum, supra, 24 C4th at p. 1132; Holguin v. DISH Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1332.)
Defendants do not request a lodestar adjustment. In considering the lodestar factors, a trial court must “focus on providing an award of attorney fees reasonably designed to fully compensate [the prevailing party] attorneys for the services provided.” (Horsford v. Board of Trustees (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.) This court may use its own experience to determine the value of attorneys’ fees. (Spencer v. Collins (1909) 156 Cal. 298, 306 [“The value of attorney's services is a matter with which a judge must necessarily be familiar.
When the court is informed of the extent and nature of such services, its own experience furnishes it with every element necessary to fix their value.”]; Reynolds v. Ford Motor Company (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1113-14 [“The trial court acted well within its discretion in using ‘the prevailing market value in the community for similar legal services’ relying on its personal knowledge and familiarity with the area legal services, as the ‘touchstone’ for determination” of the reasonable hourly rates.’” (citations omitted)].).
This court had extensive experience in class action and other common fund cases while an attorney and has made decisions about attorneys’ fees and costs frequently during her time as a judicial officer. This court was the single assigned judge and presided over pretrial and trial.
The court finds David Sloan’s hourly rate of $450.00 per hour, the amount he charged his clients, reasonable. Sloan has been in practice for more than forty years in San Mateo County. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 5.) The court finds the work performed by Sloan reasonable. He is the only person seeking fees. He began representing defendants on or about March 3, 2025. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 2.) According to the court’s review of the court records, there was seven days with the jury, two pretrial conferences and a jury conference.
The court file also shows two conferences with the civil commissioner. Sloan also participated in discovery, written and depositions, communications with the clients and plaintiff’s counsel, legal research preparing the pretrial documents and other tasks. (Sloan Decl., ¶ 3.) The court finds Sloan’s requested hours of 197.4 reasonable and there is no argument by plaintiffs to the contrary. Sloan also requests one additional hour for a reply, which may not be necessary, but the court awards it because there will need to be time preparing the proposed order, sending it to plaintiff’s counsel for approval pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and filing it with the court.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for defendants shall prepare a written order and amended judgment consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.