Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02288/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02288-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

– 1 – 15cv2288

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY 

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-2288-BAS(WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

COSTS

[ECF No. 71]

v.

2485 CALLE DEL ORO, LLC,

et al.,

Defendants.

On June 19, 2018, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Stewart 

Title Guaranty Company’s (“Stewart Title”) motion for a default judgment. (ECF 

No. 66.) The Court determined that entry of a default judgment was warranted on 

Stewart Title’s claims for breach of promissory note, breach of guaranty, express 

indemnity and fraud (as to Defendants Borrower and Gettel). (Id.) Stewart Title was 

awarded compensatory damages in the full amount requested of $1,832,472.13, plus 

interest in the amount of $1,536,120.09. (Id.) 

Before the Court is Stewart Title’s unopposed motion for an award of 

$48,708.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this litigation. (ECF No. 71.) 

Stewart Title indicates that it incurred some $52,493.50 in attorneys’ fees and costs 

in connection with this litigation, yet only seeks 90% of that amount. (ECF No. 71-

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 72 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
– 2 – 15cv2288

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 at 5.) Because it prevailed on its contract-based causes of action, Stewart Title 

seeks to recover attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to express provisions of the 

various contractual agreements involved in this case. (Am. Compl. Ex. A, Loan 

Agreement ¶ 7.10; Ex. B, Promissory Note ¶ 8; Ex. C, Deed of Trust ¶ 8.10; Ex. E, 

Non-Recourse Carveout Guaranty ¶ 13(b); Ex. Q, Lien Release and Remainder 

Liability Agreement ¶ 8.a.) The Court finds that Stewart Title is entitled to recover 

$48,708.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

DISCUSSION

“A federal court sitting in diversity applies the law of the forum state regarding 

an award of attorneys’ fees.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bisop, 22 F.3d 877, 883 

(9th Cir. 2000). California Civil Code § 1717 provides that where “the parties 

contractually obligate themselves” to compensate each other, attorneys’ fees may be 

awarded. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Law Offices of Conrado Joe Sayas, Jr., 250 F.3d 

1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 2001). The amount of “[r]easonable attorney’s fees shall be 

fixed by the court.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a); Ellis v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc., 

218 Cal. App. 4th 853, 882 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted) (“[A]scertaining 

the fee amount is left to the trial court’s sound discretion[.]”) Consistent with Section 

1717(a), “California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent 

on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of 

an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.” Margolin v. Reg’l Planning Comm’n of L.A. 

Cty., 185 Cal. Rptr. 145, 148 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982) (citations omitted). “[T]he fee 

setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of 

hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” PLCM Grp. v. 

Drexler, 997 P.2d 511, 518 (Cal. 2000). As to the computation of hours, “trial courts 

must carefully review attorney documentation of hours expended.” Ketchum v. 

Moses, 17 P.3d 735, 743 (Cal. 2001). 

After reviewing the experience of the attorneys involved in this case, the rates 

charged, and the billing records, the Court finds that the amount of attorneys’ fees 

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 72 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
– 3 – 15cv2288

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

incurred is reasonable. Stewart Title has litigated this case for nearly three years, 

even in the face of violations of court orders by several defendants. 

In addition to attorney fees, Stewart Title also incurred costs, including 

$606.00 in filing fees and $5,782.54 in service of process fees. (ECF No.71-1 at 5.) 

The award of costs is governed by federal law under Rule 54(d)” as “a general 

proposition.” In re Merrill Lynch Relocation Mgmt., Inc., 812 F.2d 1116, 1120 n.2 

(9th Cir. 1987); Am. Boat Racing Ass’n v. Richards, No. 2:14–cv–1909–KJM–KJN, 

2015 WL 1320956, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) (“[F]ederal law governs the award 

of costs even in a diversity action.”). Stewart Title may properly recover the filing 

fee for this action. See DLI Assets, LLC v. Pirate Gem, LLC, No. 17-cv-02216-BASNLS, 2018 WL 1920219, at *7–8 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2018). Stewart Title may also 

recover $5,782.54 in service of process fees, including private investigator costs 

necessary to effectuate service. See Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 

914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990); Oyarzo v. Tuolumne Fire Dist., No. 1:11-CV01271-LJO, 2013 WL 5718877, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013); see also 700 

Valencia St. LLC v. Farina Focaccia & Cucina Italiana, LLC, No. 15-cv-04931-JCS, 

2018 WL 783930, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2015) (awarding private investigator costs 

necessary for service). Despite incurring attorneys’ fees and costs totaling some 

$54,120.77, Stewart Title only seeks an aggregate amount of $48,708.00. (ECF No. 

71.) This reflects a 10% deduction from the fees and costs incurred and not already 

awarded. The Court finds that this amount is reasonable and properly recoverable. 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Stewart Title’s motion for 

attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $48,708.00. (ECF No. 71.) The Clerk of 

the Court shall enter an award in this amount in favor of Plaintiff and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 7, 2018

Case 3:15-cv-02288-BAS-WVG Document 72 Filed 08/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3