The People of the State of California, by and through Oakland City Attorney Ryan Richardson, et al. vs 955 57th Street LLC, a Limited Liability Company, et al.

25CV112520: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY RYAN RICHARDSON, et al. vs 955 57TH STREET LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by City of Oakland, a Municipal Corporation (Plaintiff) + CRS# 140750987341 in Department 21

Tentative Ruling - 08/28/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee

The Motion for Attorney Fees filed by City of Oakland, a Municipal Corporation, The People of The State of California, by and through Oakland City Attorney Ryan Richardson on 07/06/2026 is Granted in Part.

The motion of Plaintiff the People for an award of attorneys’ fees under CCP 1218(a) is GRANTED IN PART.

A party may seek an award of fees if it has prevailed in a proceeding for contempt. CCP 1218(a) states: “In addition, a person who is subject to a court order as a party to the action who is adjudged guilty of contempt for violating that court order may be ordered to pay to the party initiating the contempt proceeding the reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by this party in connection with the contempt proceeding.” The legislature enacted the fee-shifting provision of section 1218(a) “to encourage parties to enforce contempt violations and to encourage parties to comply with court orders by imposing an additional cost for noncompliance.” (Ofek Rachel, Ltd. V. Zion (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1125.)

The People seek an award of fees related to its work on the ex parte application for an OSC re contempt, which resulted in the Order of 5/7/26.

The People are entitled to fees under CCP 1218(a) as the prevailing party on the motion for contempt.

The Court applies the familiar lodestar analysis to determine the amount of fees. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) The People seek fees of $283,202 representing 327.38 hours of attorney work at rates of $625-$902.

Regarding number of attorney hours worked, the time must have been spent “in connection with the contempt proceeding.” California courts generally treat "in connection with" as a broad phrase. (Rice v. Downs (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 175, 186 [arbitration agreement]; Medill v. Westport Ins. Corp. (2006) 143 Cal. App. 4th 819, 830 [insurance contract]). That noted, the phrase "in connection with" requires a reasonable connection. There is a distinction between time spent on the collection and organization of evidence related to the prosecution of a case generally and the time spent in connection with a motion for contempt specifically. A party that prevails on a motion for contempt cannot use CCP 1218(a) to seek fees for all the time spent on the case that preceded the motion.

The People assert it spent 363.84 hours on the motion, makes a 10% reduction, and seeks fees for 25CV112520: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY RYAN RICHARDSON, et al. vs 955 57TH STREET LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by City of Oakland, a Municipal Corporation (Plaintiff) + CRS# 140750987341 in Department 21 327.38 hours of attorney work. Defendant reviewed the time records and submitted an audit that excluded time that was arguably not reasonable, would exclude 139 hours and implicitly acknowledges that 188 hours were reasonable. (McGrew Dec, Exh A.)

Defendant’s opposition has a chart at page 6 that suggests a substantial number of the hours identified by the People concerned prosecution of the case generally and not the motion for contempt specifically. The Court concludes that the People reasonably spent 200 hours in connection with the motion for contempt specifically.

Regarding hourly rates of counsel, the Court considers the evidence and its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market. (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 709.)

The Court determines the reasonable rate based on the rate that is “prevailing in the community for similar work.” (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 702.) The Court will use a blended rate rather than attempt to determine the “reasonable rate” for each individual attorney. The court finds that a blended rate of $700 is an appropriate hourly rate for the work in this case. (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 708- 709 [blended rate of $550]; Espejo v. Copley Press, Inc. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 329, 337 [blended rate of $500/hour].)

The 200 hours and the reasonable rate of $700 results in a lodestar of $140,000.

The Court ORDERS that defendant must pay the People fees under CCP 1218(a) in the amount of $140,000. Defendant must pay the fees within 30 days of this order.

PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the court’s website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.

If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, “parties to appear,” please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.