Preview
CIV-130
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Michael B. Brown (SBN 179222) / Nicholas D. Karkazis (SBN 299075)
Stoel Rives LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Ste. 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814
TELEPHONE NO.:916-447-0700 FAX NO. (Optional):
michael.brown@stoel.com / nicholas.karkazis@stoel.com
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional):
Kila Tahoe, LLC
ATTORNEY FOR (Name):
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
08/31/2020
STREET ADDRESS: 10820 Justice Center Dr.
MAILING ADDRESS:
Roseville 95678
CITY AND ZIP CODE:
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Sierra Northwest Properties, LLC
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kila Tahoe, LLC, et al.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER:
SCV0041099
OR ORDER
(Check one): UNLIMITED CASE LIMITED CASE
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
1. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): August 31, 2020
2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date: August 31, 2020
Michael B. Brown
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE)
Page 1 of 2
Form Approved for Optional Use www.courtinfo.ca.gov
Judicial Council of California
CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
www.courtinfo.ca.gov American LegalNet, Inc.
www.FormsWorkFlow.com
CIV-130
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Sierra Northwest Properties, LLC CASE NUMBER:
SCV0041099
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kila Tahoe, LLC, et al.
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served
the notice must complete this proof of service.)
1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place, and my residence or business address is (specify):
500 Capitol Mall, Ste. 1600, Sacramento, CA 95814
2. I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage
fully prepaid and (check one):
a. deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
b. placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices,
with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.
3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed:
a. on (date): August 31, 2020
b. from (city and state): Sacramento, CA
4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: Kristen Renfro and Gary c. Name of person served:
Livaich of Desmond, Nolan, et al.
Street address: 1830 15th St. Street address:
City: Sacramento City:
State and zip code: CA 95811 State and zip code:
b. Name of person served: John Bilheimer and Allan d. Name of person served:
Haley of Haley & Bilheimer
Street address: 505 Coyote St., Ste. A Street address:
City: Nevada City City:
State and zip code: CA 95959 State and zip code:
Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).)
5. Number of pages attached 8.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: August 31, 2020
Dawn R. Forgeur, CCLS
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT)
Page 2 of 2
CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER American LegalNet, Inc.
www.FormsWorkFlow.com
FI
ior
LEofDCalifornia
Court
Supercounty of Placer
WN
AUG 31 2020
KR
a oie Officer & Clerk
y: J/Gonsalves, Deputy
DO
AN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
Oo
CO
Er
SIERRA NORTHWEST PROPERTIES, Case No.: S-CV-0041099
YF
RE
He, RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER
NY
Plaintiff,
Re
W
Ree
vs.
BR
KILA TAHOE, LLC, et al,
Re
NT
WD
Defendants.
RR
WAN
RR
UO
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
TO
DN
FP
N
NY
WN
Kila Tahoe, LLC’s motion for attorneys’ fees, and Sierra Northwest
NY
Properties, LLC’s motion to strike costs came on regularly for hearing on
BR
NY
August 4, 2020, in Department 40 of the Placer County Superior Court.
OT
NY
Michael Brown, Esq. appeared on behalf of defendant and cross-
AD
NY
complainant Kila Tahoe, LLC. Gary Livaich, Esq. appeared on behalf of
NY
PAN
plaintiff and cross-defendant Sierra Northwest Properties, LLC. The court
NO
has carefully considered the moving and opposing papers, and the oral
argument of the parties at the hearing. The court rules on the matter
NY
submitted to the court as follows:
KRW
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
UH
WD
Kila Tahoe, LLC’s (“Kila’s”) request for judicial notice is granted.
AN
Kila moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the terms of the
settlement agreement between Kila and Sierra Northwest Properties, LLP
Oo
(“SNP”).
CO
The parties’ settlement agreement states:
fF
ee
11. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any Party to this
NY
Agreement brings any motion, suit, or other proceeding
Be
W
concerning the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement,
KR
Be
the prevailing party (as determined by the court before which
Be
MN
such motion, suit, or proceeding is commenced) shall, in addition
Be
DW
to such other relief as may be awarded, be entitled to recover
Be
WAN
attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of investigation as actually
BB
incurred (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, expenses
oO
and costs of investigation incurred in appellate proceedings).
NN
TD
FP
NN
SNP previously brought a motion to enforce the parties’ settlement
WN
agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The court issued a
NY
ruling granting SNP’s motion, finding that the parties’ settlement
BR
NY
agreement should be modified in part. Kila subsequently moved to set
NY
WU
aside and vacate the judgment, and enter another and different judgment.
DW
NNN
On February 25, 2020, the court issued a ruling granting Kila’s motion to
On
set aside and vacate the judgment. Kila was directed to prepare a
proposed modified ruling with respect to SNP’s prior motion to enforce,
which denied the motion, and a proposed judgment thereon. In this
WN
motion, Kila seeks its attorneys’ fees pursuant to the terms of the parties’
settlement agreement, as the prevailing party on the motion to set aside
KR
and vacate. As set forth in its reply brief, Kila requests fees incurred
DH
between July 2019, when it first incurred fees relating to SNP’s motion to
enforce, and February 25, 2020, when the court’s ruling on Kila’s motion to
DAN
set aside and vacate was issued, in the total amount of $108,197.50.
In light of the language in the parties’ settlement agreement, the
Oo
court may award fees relating to a motion seeking enforcement or
eB
O
interpretation of the agreement. Jn re Mission Ins. Co. (1995) 41
YF
RB
Cal.App.4th 828, 840. In this case, Kila is the prevailing party on its
NY
RF
motion to set aside and vacate, which had the effect of reversing the
RP
W
court’s prior ruling to grant SNP’s motion to enforce. Thus, the court finds
KR
RFP
that Kila is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees relating to the
RP
UN
motion to set aside and vacate, and the underlying motion to enforce.
BFP
WD
Fee setting typically begins with the “lodestar” — i.e., a touchstone
Re
WAN
figure based on the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the
RP
reasonable hourly rate. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th
FP
HO
1084, 1095-1097. Kila requests attorneys’ fees based on requested billing
DO
NN
rates ranging between $265-$550 per hour. “The reasonable hourly rate is
FY
NY
that prevailing in the community for similar work.” Id. at 1095. “The
NY
WN
lodestar figure is calculated using the reasonable rate for comparable legal
NY
services in the local community for noncontingent litigation of the same
HR
NY
type, multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent on the case.”
NY
DU
Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1242-1243. In the
NY
court’s experience, the billing rates requested are not commensurate with
NUN
ON
prevailing billing rates in this local community or region for cases of this
NO
type. Considering the circumstances of the present case, and reasonable
billing rates prevailing in this community, the court finds that a reasonable
DN
billing rate for attorney Michael Brown is $400 per hour. The court finds
BW
that the reasonable billing rate for attorney Greg Gatto is $375 per hour.
The court finds that the reasonable billing rate for attorney Jonathan Miles
DO
is $350 per hour. The court finds that the reasonable billing rate for
attorney Nicholas Karkazis is $300 per hour. The court finds that the
AN
reasonable billing rate for Lauren Neuhaus is $275 per hour. The court finds
that the reasonable billing rate for the firm’s paralegal is $130 per hour.
Oo
The court next turns to the question of whether the hours expended
OC
Er
by attorneys and staff were reasonable. To that end the court has
FF
reviewed the motion papers, counsel’s declarations, and the entire file in
Ee
WN
this action. From a careful review of the billing statements attached to the
RE
declarations of counsel, the court generally observes instances of
HR
duplicative billing, billing for tasks that do not appear reasonably necessary
RE
NT
to the subject motions, and unreasonable amounts of time spent on various
WD
RR
tasks. For example, Kila seeks fees for over 30 hours spent in drafting
WAN
objections to SNP’s proposed judgment. Kila also seeks fees for over 100
BR
hours spent for research, drafting, and associated tasks related to the
FR
O
motion to set aside and vacate, and companion motion for new trial. The
NO
DO
court finds these requests to be excessive in light of the factual and legal
FP
NN
issues presented in the motions. The court also notes numerous entries for
NY
BPWNYN
work where redactions make it impossible to determine what work was
NY
being performed, whether such work related to the motion to vacate or
NY
motion to enforce, and whether the time spent was reasonable in light of
NY
DO
the task at hand.
NY NY
ON
NO
Based on a careful review of the billing records, the declarations of
counsel, the moving and opposing papers on this motion, and the entire file
NY
in this action, the court awards fees as follows:
BW
- $1,375 for fees incurred in connection with SNP’s motion to
enforce
UT
- $2,800 for additional work performed by attorney Michael Brown
AD
relating to the hearing on the motion to enforce
AN
- $3,750 for fees incurred in connection with Kila’s objections to
SNP’s proposed judgment (including 5 hours billed by attorney
Oo
Jonathan Miles and 5 hours billed by Michael Brown)
eB
O
- $20,175 for fees incurred in connection with Kila’s motion to set
FY
FF
aside and vacate (including 30 hours billed by attorney Nicholas
Fe
NY
Karkazis, 20 hours billed by attorney Michael Brown, 5 hours billed
Fe
W
by attorney Greg Gatto, and 10 hours billed by the firm’s
BR
FP
paralegal)
FP
UH
Based on the foregoing, Kila is awarded attorneys’ fees in the total
BW
FP
amount of $28,100.
FP
WAN
KF
Motion to Strike Costs
OO
KP
DO
NO
Kila Tahoe, LLC’s (“Kila’s”) request for judicial notice is granted.
FP
N
Sierra Northwest Properties, LLP (“SNP”) moves to strike the
NN
BRWNYN
memorandum of costs filed by Kila on April 30, 2020. Pursuant to the
NN
memorandum of costs, Kila seeks costs totaling $3,555.05, including filings
N
fees of $80, First Legal fees of $1,432.05, and computerized research costs
MN
NN
in the amount of $2,043.
ODO
NO
The parties’ settlement agreement states:
NO
ON
NM
11. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any Party to this
Agreement brings any motion, suit, or other proceeding
WN
concerning the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement,
the prevailing party (as determined by the court before which
BP
such motion, suit, or proceeding is commenced) shall, in addition
DMN
to such other relief as may be awarded, be entitled to recover
attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of investigation as actually
DAN
incurred (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, expenses
and costs of investigation incurred in appellate proceedings).
Oo
As noted in connection with Kila’s motion for attorneys’ fees, Kila is
CO
eB
the prevailing party on its motion to set aside and vacate, which had the
FY
FF
effect of reversing the court’s prior ruling to grant SNP’s motion to enforce.
KF
NY
The court finds that Kila is entitled to costs pursuant to the plain language
KF
W
of the parties’ settlement agreement. See In re Mission Ins. Co. (1995) 41
HR
FP
Cal.App.4th 828, 840.
RP
UN
The court finds that a sufficient showing has been made to support
WD
FP
costs relating to filing fees and First Legal charges for the filing of
FP
WAN
documents. However, neither the memorandum of costs nor Kila’s
FP
opposition provides information to support the requested cost for
HO
FP
computerized research beyond the amount. Thus, despite the language of
NY
TD
the settlement agreement which permits the recovery of costs of
FP
NY
investigation, the court cannot conclude that such costs were reasonably
NY
WN
incurred in connection with the subject motions.
NY
//
BR
NY
//
NN
DMN
//
NY
//
NO
A®OnN
//
NO
Based on the foregoing, the motion to strike is granted in part as to
DY
computerized research costs in the amount of $2,043. The motion is
BW
otherwise denied. Kila is awarded costs in the total amount of $1,512.05.
NT
WD
IT IS SO ORDERED
DAN
Oo
.
DATED: $-3/-Ar+2e °
\
OO
4 - Glenr™. Holl , Commissioner
lacer Geunty Sup rior Court
YF
YF FF
WYN
FP
KR
FP FP
DH
FP FP
WBN
FP
HO
fF
TD
N
FP
NY NY
WN
NY
KR
NY
UMN
NY
AD
NY NY
@®nN
NO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (C.C.P. §1013a(4))
Case No.: S-CV-0041099
Case Name: Sierra Northwest Properties, LLC vs. Kila Tahoe, LLC et al
I,the undersigned, certify that Iam the clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of
Placer, and I am not a party to thiscase.
I mailed copies of the documents(s) indicated below:
Order: Ruling on Submitted Matter
True copies of the documents were mailed following standard court practices in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:
Gary Livaich Michael Brown
1830 15th Street 15th & S. Building 500 Capitol Mall Ste 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
I am readily familiar with the court’s business practices for collecting and processing
correspondence for mailing; pursuant to those practices, these documents are delivered to
[X] the US Postal Service
[_] UPS
[_] FedEx
[_] Interoffice mail
[_] Other:
on in Placer County, California.
Dated:08/3 1/2020 JAKE CHATTERS
Clerk ofthe Superior Court
YX] VW AE
/ J.Gonsalvés ,Deputy Clerk
~,
|
Preview
CIV-130 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Michael B. Brown (SBN 179222) / Nicholas D. Karkazis (SBN 299075) Stoel Rives LLP 500 Capitol Mall, Ste. 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 TELEPHONE NO.:916-447-0700 FAX NO. (Optional): michael.brown@stoel.com / nicholas.karkazis@stoel.com E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): Kila Tahoe, LLC ATTORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER 08/31/2020 STREET ADDRESS: 10820 Justice Center Dr. MAILING ADDRESS: Roseville 95678 CITY AND ZIP CODE: BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Sierra Northwest Properties, LLC DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kila Tahoe, LLC, et al. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER: SCV0041099 OR ORDER (Check one): UNLIMITED CASE LIMITED CASE (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 1. A judgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): August 31, 2020 2. A copy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date: August 31, 2020 Michael B. Brown (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) (SIGNATURE) Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use www.courtinfo.ca.gov Judicial Council of California CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER www.courtinfo.ca.gov American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com CIV-130 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Sierra Northwest Properties, LLC CASE NUMBER: SCV0041099 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Kila Tahoe, LLC, et al. PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) 1. I am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify): 500 Capitol Mall, Ste. 1600, Sacramento, CA 95814 2. I served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and (check one): a. deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. b. placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which I am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. 3. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed: a. on (date): August 31, 2020 b. from (city and state): Sacramento, CA 4. The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: Kristen Renfro and Gary c. Name of person served: Livaich of Desmond, Nolan, et al. Street address: 1830 15th St. Street address: City: Sacramento City: State and zip code: CA 95811 State and zip code: b. Name of person served: John Bilheimer and Allan d. Name of person served: Haley of Haley & Bilheimer Street address: 505 Coyote St., Ste. A Street address: City: Nevada City City: State and zip code: CA 95959 State and zip code: Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) 5. Number of pages attached 8. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: August 31, 2020 Dawn R. Forgeur, CCLS (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) Page 2 of 2 CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010] NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER American LegalNet, Inc. www.FormsWorkFlow.com FI ior LEofDCalifornia Court Supercounty of Placer WN AUG 31 2020 KR a oie Officer & Clerk y: J/Gonsalves, Deputy DO AN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER Oo CO Er SIERRA NORTHWEST PROPERTIES, Case No.: S-CV-0041099 YF RE He, RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER NY Plaintiff, Re W Ree vs. BR KILA TAHOE, LLC, et al, Re NT WD Defendants. RR WAN RR UO AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION TO DN FP N NY WN Kila Tahoe, LLC’s motion for attorneys’ fees, and Sierra Northwest NY Properties, LLC’s motion to strike costs came on regularly for hearing on BR NY August 4, 2020, in Department 40 of the Placer County Superior Court. OT NY Michael Brown, Esq. appeared on behalf of defendant and cross- AD NY complainant Kila Tahoe, LLC. Gary Livaich, Esq. appeared on behalf of NY PAN plaintiff and cross-defendant Sierra Northwest Properties, LLC. The court NO has carefully considered the moving and opposing papers, and the oral argument of the parties at the hearing. The court rules on the matter NY submitted to the court as follows: KRW Motion for Attorneys’ Fees UH WD Kila Tahoe, LLC’s (“Kila’s”) request for judicial notice is granted. AN Kila moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement between Kila and Sierra Northwest Properties, LLP Oo (“SNP”). CO The parties’ settlement agreement states: fF ee 11. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any Party to this NY Agreement brings any motion, suit, or other proceeding Be W concerning the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, KR Be the prevailing party (as determined by the court before which Be MN such motion, suit, or proceeding is commenced) shall, in addition Be DW to such other relief as may be awarded, be entitled to recover Be WAN attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of investigation as actually BB incurred (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, expenses oO and costs of investigation incurred in appellate proceedings). NN TD FP NN SNP previously brought a motion to enforce the parties’ settlement WN agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The court issued a NY ruling granting SNP’s motion, finding that the parties’ settlement BR NY agreement should be modified in part. Kila subsequently moved to set NY WU aside and vacate the judgment, and enter another and different judgment. DW NNN On February 25, 2020, the court issued a ruling granting Kila’s motion to On set aside and vacate the judgment. Kila was directed to prepare a proposed modified ruling with respect to SNP’s prior motion to enforce, which denied the motion, and a proposed judgment thereon. In this WN motion, Kila seeks its attorneys’ fees pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, as the prevailing party on the motion to set aside KR and vacate. As set forth in its reply brief, Kila requests fees incurred DH between July 2019, when it first incurred fees relating to SNP’s motion to enforce, and February 25, 2020, when the court’s ruling on Kila’s motion to DAN set aside and vacate was issued, in the total amount of $108,197.50. In light of the language in the parties’ settlement agreement, the Oo court may award fees relating to a motion seeking enforcement or eB O interpretation of the agreement. Jn re Mission Ins. Co. (1995) 41 YF RB Cal.App.4th 828, 840. In this case, Kila is the prevailing party on its NY RF motion to set aside and vacate, which had the effect of reversing the RP W court’s prior ruling to grant SNP’s motion to enforce. Thus, the court finds KR RFP that Kila is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees relating to the RP UN motion to set aside and vacate, and the underlying motion to enforce. BFP WD Fee setting typically begins with the “lodestar” — i.e., a touchstone Re WAN figure based on the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the RP reasonable hourly rate. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th FP HO 1084, 1095-1097. Kila requests attorneys’ fees based on requested billing DO NN rates ranging between $265-$550 per hour. “The reasonable hourly rate is FY NY that prevailing in the community for similar work.” Id. at 1095. “The NY WN lodestar figure is calculated using the reasonable rate for comparable legal NY services in the local community for noncontingent litigation of the same HR NY type, multiplied by the reasonable number of hours spent on the case.” NY DU Nichols v. City of Taft (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1242-1243. In the NY court’s experience, the billing rates requested are not commensurate with NUN ON prevailing billing rates in this local community or region for cases of this NO type. Considering the circumstances of the present case, and reasonable billing rates prevailing in this community, the court finds that a reasonable DN billing rate for attorney Michael Brown is $400 per hour. The court finds BW that the reasonable billing rate for attorney Greg Gatto is $375 per hour. The court finds that the reasonable billing rate for attorney Jonathan Miles DO is $350 per hour. The court finds that the reasonable billing rate for attorney Nicholas Karkazis is $300 per hour. The court finds that the AN reasonable billing rate for Lauren Neuhaus is $275 per hour. The court finds that the reasonable billing rate for the firm’s paralegal is $130 per hour. Oo The court next turns to the question of whether the hours expended OC Er by attorneys and staff were reasonable. To that end the court has FF reviewed the motion papers, counsel’s declarations, and the entire file in Ee WN this action. From a careful review of the billing statements attached to the RE declarations of counsel, the court generally observes instances of HR duplicative billing, billing for tasks that do not appear reasonably necessary RE NT to the subject motions, and unreasonable amounts of time spent on various WD RR tasks. For example, Kila seeks fees for over 30 hours spent in drafting WAN objections to SNP’s proposed judgment. Kila also seeks fees for over 100 BR hours spent for research, drafting, and associated tasks related to the FR O motion to set aside and vacate, and companion motion for new trial. The NO DO court finds these requests to be excessive in light of the factual and legal FP NN issues presented in the motions. The court also notes numerous entries for NY BPWNYN work where redactions make it impossible to determine what work was NY being performed, whether such work related to the motion to vacate or NY motion to enforce, and whether the time spent was reasonable in light of NY DO the task at hand. NY NY ON NO Based on a careful review of the billing records, the declarations of counsel, the moving and opposing papers on this motion, and the entire file NY in this action, the court awards fees as follows: BW - $1,375 for fees incurred in connection with SNP’s motion to enforce UT - $2,800 for additional work performed by attorney Michael Brown AD relating to the hearing on the motion to enforce AN - $3,750 for fees incurred in connection with Kila’s objections to SNP’s proposed judgment (including 5 hours billed by attorney Oo Jonathan Miles and 5 hours billed by Michael Brown) eB O - $20,175 for fees incurred in connection with Kila’s motion to set FY FF aside and vacate (including 30 hours billed by attorney Nicholas Fe NY Karkazis, 20 hours billed by attorney Michael Brown, 5 hours billed Fe W by attorney Greg Gatto, and 10 hours billed by the firm’s BR FP paralegal) FP UH Based on the foregoing, Kila is awarded attorneys’ fees in the total BW FP amount of $28,100. FP WAN KF Motion to Strike Costs OO KP DO NO Kila Tahoe, LLC’s (“Kila’s”) request for judicial notice is granted. FP N Sierra Northwest Properties, LLP (“SNP”) moves to strike the NN BRWNYN memorandum of costs filed by Kila on April 30, 2020. Pursuant to the NN memorandum of costs, Kila seeks costs totaling $3,555.05, including filings N fees of $80, First Legal fees of $1,432.05, and computerized research costs MN NN in the amount of $2,043. ODO NO The parties’ settlement agreement states: NO ON NM 11. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any Party to this Agreement brings any motion, suit, or other proceeding WN concerning the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, the prevailing party (as determined by the court before which BP such motion, suit, or proceeding is commenced) shall, in addition DMN to such other relief as may be awarded, be entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of investigation as actually DAN incurred (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs of investigation incurred in appellate proceedings). Oo As noted in connection with Kila’s motion for attorneys’ fees, Kila is CO eB the prevailing party on its motion to set aside and vacate, which had the FY FF effect of reversing the court’s prior ruling to grant SNP’s motion to enforce. KF NY The court finds that Kila is entitled to costs pursuant to the plain language KF W of the parties’ settlement agreement. See In re Mission Ins. Co. (1995) 41 HR FP Cal.App.4th 828, 840. RP UN The court finds that a sufficient showing has been made to support WD FP costs relating to filing fees and First Legal charges for the filing of FP WAN documents. However, neither the memorandum of costs nor Kila’s FP opposition provides information to support the requested cost for HO FP computerized research beyond the amount. Thus, despite the language of NY TD the settlement agreement which permits the recovery of costs of FP NY investigation, the court cannot conclude that such costs were reasonably NY WN incurred in connection with the subject motions. NY // BR NY // NN DMN // NY // NO A®OnN // NO Based on the foregoing, the motion to strike is granted in part as to DY computerized research costs in the amount of $2,043. The motion is BW otherwise denied. Kila is awarded costs in the total amount of $1,512.05. NT WD IT IS SO ORDERED DAN Oo . DATED: $-3/-Ar+2e ° \ OO 4 - Glenr™. Holl , Commissioner lacer Geunty Sup rior Court YF YF FF WYN FP KR FP FP DH FP FP WBN FP HO fF TD N FP NY NY WN NY KR NY UMN NY AD NY NY @®nN NO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER CLERK’S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (C.C.P. §1013a(4)) Case No.: S-CV-0041099 Case Name: Sierra Northwest Properties, LLC vs. Kila Tahoe, LLC et al I,the undersigned, certify that Iam the clerk of the Superior Court of California, County of Placer, and I am not a party to thiscase. I mailed copies of the documents(s) indicated below: Order: Ruling on Submitted Matter True copies of the documents were mailed following standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows: Gary Livaich Michael Brown 1830 15th Street 15th & S. Building 500 Capitol Mall Ste 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 I am readily familiar with the court’s business practices for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing; pursuant to those practices, these documents are delivered to [X] the US Postal Service [_] UPS [_] FedEx [_] Interoffice mail [_] Other: on in Placer County, California. Dated:08/3 1/2020 JAKE CHATTERS Clerk ofthe Superior Court YX] VW AE / J.Gonsalvés ,Deputy Clerk ~, |