Javaheripour v. Sigal CA2/4

Filed 9/22/21 Javaheripour v. Sigal CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

FAHIMEH JAVAHERIPOUR, B304911 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 19SMCV01670) GENE SIGAL,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from order and judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Young, Judge. Affirmed and remanded for determination of attorneys’ fees on appeal. Fahimeh Javaheripour, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, Stephen E. Foster and Andrew C. Spitser for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Fahimeh Javaheripour appeals from the trial court’s order granting attorneys’ fees to defendant and respondent Gene Sigal. Javaheripour contends the court erred because there was no written agreement containing a prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision. Alternatively, she contends the attorneys’ fees awarded were unreasonable. We reject both contentions and affirm. We also find the lease agreement between the parties entitles Sigal to an award of attorneys’ fees on appeal, and remand to the trial court to calculate the amount of those fees.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2012, Sigal leased a residential property in Malibu (the premises) owned by Javaheripour. In 2018, the parties signed a subsequent lease. Both lease agreements contained a substantially similar attorneys’ fees provision, which stated in relevant part: “In any action or proceeding arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party between Landlord and Tenant shall be entitled to reasonable attorney[s’] fees and costs.” In 2019, Javaheripour filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Sigal seeking to evict him from the premises for alleged failure to pay rent. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Sigal, finding Javaheripour breached her duty to provide Sigal with habitable premises. It also found Sigal was the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees. Sigal filed a motion for attorneys’ fees seeking a total of $199,940.50 in fees and $5,131.78 in costs. Sigal supported his motion with declarations from his attorneys (Stephen Foster and Matthew Beasley) detailing the work they performed, and a declaration from their firm’s Chief Marketing and Financial Officer regarding the attorneys’ hourly rates. Javaheripour opposed the motion, arguing the hourly rates and the hours expended were excessive, unreasonable, and unsupported by 2