SAARMAN CONSTRUCTION, LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs COLONDRES, et al.

25CV145805: SAARMAN CONSTRUCTION, LTD., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs COLONDRES, et al. 07/31/2026 Default Prove Up Hearing in Department 25

Tentative Ruling - 07/30/2026 Jenna Whitman

ORDER RE: CASE MANAGEMENT

The Court has ordered the following after review of the case.

The hearing is continued as set forth below to allow Plaintiff to submit the supplemental materials enumerated below. Provided that the supplemental materials are satisfactory, the Court is of the view that default judgment may be entered without a hearing, as Plaintiff does not seek general (subjective) damages, and Plaintiff's declarations state facts on personal knowledge with the requisite particularity, as needed to establish a prima facie evidence each item of damages incurred in connection with the contract. (See Code Civ. Proc., 585(d).)

The lone exception are the attorney's fees as damages, sought pursuant to Plaintiff's indemnity claim, specifically, for fees incurred in connection with the wage action brought against Plaintiff by Defendant/subcontractor's employees. Such fees are subject to Civil Code section 2778(3), which provides that, absent contrary intention in the agreement, where an indemnity clause entitles a plaintiff to recover attorney's fees incurred in connection with defendant's default, the plaintiff must demonstrate that those fees were "incurred in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable discretion."

Here, Plaintiff has supplied counsel's billing records which are almost entirely redacted, and no information supporting individual billing rates. Importantly, the tasks performed are entirely redacted, making it impossible to tell what work was done in connection with each billing entry. Nor have the billing professionals provided declarations bearing on this issue, i.e. identifying and quantifying the categories of work performed in the action, and explaining why such tasks were reasonably undertaken, and identifying any exercise of billing discretion (writing off excessive time).

In the Court's view, the easiest and most effective way of conveying such information is through a task-based billing matrix (chart), showing the hours billed by each billing professional for each category of work performed (e.g., pleadings, case management, discovery, motions practice, dispositive motions, mediation/settlement negotiations, preparation of settlement agreement, etc.). This would provide the Court with the evidence needed to assess compliance with section 2778 subd. (3). (Cf. Syers Props. III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 700