Opinion ID: 2244131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Market Rate

Text: The reasonable market value of the attorney's services is the measure of a reasonable hourly rate. ( Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1139, 104 Cal. Rptr.2d 377,17 P.3d 735 ( Ketchum ).) The determination of market rate is generally based on the rates prevalent in the community where the services are rendered, i.e., where the court is located. ( Davis v. Mason County (9th Cir.1991) 927 F.2d 1473, 1488.) The burden is on the successful party to prove the appropriate market rate to be used in calculating the lodestar. ( Blum v. Stenson (1984) 465 U.S. 886, 895 fn. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891.) However, the moving party may satisfy its burden through its own affidavits, without additional evidence. ( Davis v. City of San Diego (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 893, 903, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 266.) Moreover, in assessing a reasonable hourly rate, the trial court is allowed to consider the attorney's skill as reflected in the quality of the work, as well as the attorney's reputation and status. (See Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1139, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 17 P.3d 735; Mandel, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 761, 155 Cal.Rptr. 269.) Here, the declaration of respondent's counsel states the hourly billing rates for the two attorneys who worked on this matter: $375 and $260. [4] The declaration of respondent's counsel attests to counsel's many years of business litigation experience. As indicated in the April 10, 2006 order, [appellant] submitted no evidence that respondent's fees are excessive. Based on review of this evidence, the trial court had a reasonable basis to find that the billing rates set forth in the declaration of respondent's counsel were reasonable hourly rates.