GAMOS vs BAY AREA CRIMINAL LAWYERS, PC, et al.

24CV095285: GAMOS vs BAY AREA CRIMINAL LAWYERS, PC, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by David Jonathan Cohen (Defendant) CRS# 492343014760 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 09/01/2026 Thomas Eagle Weathers

The Motion for Attorney Fees filed by David Jonathan Cohen on 03/20/2026 is Granted.

Defendants David Jonathan Cohen, Clinton Cruz Christoffersen, and Bay Area Criminal Lawyer PC’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joshua Galang Gamos (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on October 14, 2024, against Defendants David Jonathan Cohen (“Cohen”), Clinton Cruz Christoffersen (“Christoffersen”), and Bay Area Criminal Lawyers, PC (“BACL”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for (1) Conversion; (2) Fraud; (3) Breach of Contract; (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (5) Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision. Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendants improperly retained funds relating to their representation of Plaintiff in criminal legal proceedings.

The parties’ September 10, 2018 retainer agreement is attached to the Complaint. The agreement contains the following provision:

Fees in Connection with Fee Dispute. If, in connection with any fee dispute, we incur any expenses, including legal fees and expenses in connection with the filing of a lawsuit to collect our fees and costs, you agree to pay the attorney’s fees and costs necessary to any reasonable collection efforts including those in connection with the filing and maintenance of any lawsuit to collect our outstanding fees and expenses. You also agree to pay us, at our respective hourly rates, for fees relating to collecting against invoices where payment is more than 15 days late.

On January 14, 2026, the Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment, on the ground that Plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. Judgment was entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendants on January 20, 2026.

Defendants now move for attorneys’ fees totaling $48,766.21 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032, 1033.5(a)(10), and Civil Code section 1717.

LEGAL STANDARD

Attorneys’ fees are allowable as costs when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (C.C.P. § 1033.5(a)(10). “Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding. (C.C.P. § 1032(b).) Absent 24CV095285: GAMOS vs BAY AREA CRIMINAL LAWYERS, PC, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by David Jonathan Cohen (Defendant) CRS# 492343014760 in Department 20 statutory authority, the court lacks discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party. (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1124.)

The burden is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove that the fees it seeks are reasonable. (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 169.)

The trial court has substantial discretion in determining the size of an attorney fee award. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1133; Sternwest Corp. v. Ash (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 74, 76.) “Trial judges are entrusted with this discretionary determination because they are in the best position to assess the value of the professional services provided in their courts.” (Cates v. Chiang (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 791, 821.)“[T]rial courts have discretion to award fees based on declarations of counsel describing the work they have done and the court's own view of the number of hours reasonably spent.” (Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 699.) Regarding the amount of the reasonable rate, the court considers the evidence and its own knowledge and familiarity with the legal market. (Meridian Financial Services, Inc. v. Phan (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 657, 709.)

“A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether.” (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635.) The court must take into account whether the time expended or the monetary charge being made for the time expended is not reasonable under all of the circumstances. (Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 785, 817.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Notice is taken only of the existence of the Complaint in this action, and not the truth of factual matters asserted therein. (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 261, 280.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek a total of $48,766.21, which consists of (1) costs of $2,303.71 and fees of $45,067 in the defense of this action; and (2) costs of $60.00 and fees of $1,335.50 incurred on the instant fee motion. (Sommer Decl. ¶ 12.) A prevailing party may ordinarily recover fees reasonably incurred in establishing and defending the fee claim. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1141.)

The parties do not dispute that Defendants are the prevailing party in this action. Plaintiff has not submitted an opposition brief to the instant motion but has submitted a declaration stating that does not have the funds to pay for the requested attorneys’ fees, “and so I disagree with their request.” (4/17/26 Pltf Decl. ¶ 6.) However, “it is inappropriate to consider the losing party’s financial status as an equitable factor in assessing contractual attorney fees.” (Walker v. Ticor Title Co. of California (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 363, 372.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095285: GAMOS vs BAY AREA CRIMINAL LAWYERS, PC, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by David Jonathan Cohen (Defendant) CRS# 492343014760 in Department 20

Reasonable Hourly Rates

Defendants request hourly rates of $285 for partner, Jason Sommer, and $235 for associates Terry Martin and Mariya Ahmadi, which reflect discounted rates. (Sommer Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7, 10-11.) The Court finds these hourly rates to be reasonable.

Reasonableness of Hours Billed

Defendants submit the billing entries of counsel as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Jason Sommer. The billing entries include both time entries by counsel as well as costs incurred. (Sommer Decl. Exh. B.)

Sommer states that he has reviewed the time and expenses for accuracy and reasonableness, and confirms that the time entries reflect time actually spent for the legal services described, and accurately reflect the work performed in defending this litigation. (Sommer Decl. ¶ 3.) The total hours expended in this action total 202.70 hours. (Id., Exh. B.) The time entries range from December 17, 2024 through March 16, 2026. (Id.)

Upon review of the time entries submitted by defense counsel, and in the absence of any motion to strike or tax costs by Plaintiff, or any specific objection to any entry by Plaintiff, the time expended appears reasonable and appropriate. The entries appear to reflect discussions with the clients; meet and confer with Plaintiff; discovery; case management; and the motion for summary judgment. As such, the Court does not find grounds to reduce the amount sought. (Morris v. Hyundai Motor Am. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 24, 38 [reduced award justified where case is over-litigated, bill is padded, or where opposing party states valid objections].)

CONCLUSION

Defendants David Jonathan Cohen, Clinton Cruz Christoffersen, and Bay Area Criminal Lawyer PC’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED. The Court awards attorneys’ fees and costs to Defendants in the total amount of $48,766.21.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV095285: GAMOS vs BAY AREA CRIMINAL LAWYERS, PC, et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by David Jonathan Cohen (Defendant) CRS# 492343014760 in Department 20 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed" BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.