| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Costs
City of Monterey v. Leslie J. Flores, et al.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Costs
Hearing Date: May 15, 2026
Plaintiff, the City of Monterey (“Plaintiff”), requests an order awarding it fees and costs totaling $183,833.95. Defendant 43034 LLC (“Defendant”) does not contest Plaintiff’s statutory right to fees. However, Defendant seeks an order requiring Plaintiff to provide proof of the fees and costs incurred in its code enforcement efforts. [Opp. at 6.]
After reviewing the supporting and opposing papers, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART, and the Court awards fees and costs to Plaintiff totaling $172,887.95. Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.
On June 5, 2024, this Court approved the Plaintiff’s request to appoint a Receiver due to the poor conditions of the property located at 359 Larkin Street in Monterey, California. The parties have agreed on a rehabilitation plan. As the enforcement agency, Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as determined by the court. [Health & Saf. Code § 17980.7, subd. (c)(11); City of Norco v. Mugar (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 786, 799-800.]
Plaintiff, in its reply, requests attorney’s fees and costs totaling $183,833.95. [See 4/7/26 Trujillo Decl. and 5/8/26 Supp. Trujillo Decl., passim.] The court finds that the initial and supplemental declarations of Plaintiff’s counsel, Matthew Trujillo, signed under penalty of perjury, provide a summary of the work performed, using various categories and milestones to describe the tasks and time billed by staff from paralegals to attorneys. These declarations are sufficient for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the fee and cost request.
Therefore, Defendant’s request for a redacted version of all timesheets is DENIED, as it is unnecessary given the adequacy of Mr. Trujillo’s declarations. Moreover, such a request would unduly increase the costs to be awarded.
Regarding the reasonableness of counsel’s rates, Defendant, in its opposition, does not address the requested attorney hourly rates of $264 to $297 or the hourly paralegal rates of $139 to $151. The Court finds these rates to be reasonable for the services provided to a public entity in this community.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendant does not specifically address any concerns related to the services described in paragraphs 9 through 115 of Mr. Trujillo’s declaration. These paragraphs outline a breakdown of hours and provide more detail than just “block billing.” After reviewing the declarations, the Court determines that some billings are not reasonably incurred and should be deducted as follows:
¶1 Billing at issue Requested Granted Reasoning 21 “...10.7 coordinating with 52 hours 41.3 hoursThe 10.7 hours spent on process servers and defendant $11,272.15 $9,784.85 service efforts appear to be for service.” clerical overhead. The Court will deduct 10.7 hours and $1,487.30, which is the paralegal rate of $139 per hour. 26 “...39.6 hours for drafting 83.7 hours 75.7 hours The requested hours are five declarations in support of $21,310.20 $19,070.20 excessive and amount to an the Ex Parte Receivership hourly rate of $254.60.
In its Application, including discretion, the Court deducts roughly 12 hours each for the 8 hours and $2,240, which is Declaration of Code the attorney’s rate of $280 Enforcement Compliance per hour. Coordinator Rory Lakind and Declaration of Building Inspector Lori Williamson, roughly 5.2 hours each for drafting the remaining three supporting declarations; 17.2 hours for drafting the [Memorandum]; 16.7 hours for drafting the Request for Judicial Notice, Proposed Order, and Appendix of Exhibits; 4.3 hours for drafting the Notice of Motion and Ex Parte Notice letter;” 28 “...7.9 hours at a cost of 7.9 hours 0 hours The billing for March 26 to $1,558.70 drafting, filing, and $1,558.70 $0 April 28, 2024, regarding the serving the notice of intent to notice of intent to request request entry of default and default against Defendant request for entry of default Domenica Gianino is against Defendant Domenica; unreasonable because she compiling, filing, and serving was only served on March the Ex Parte Receivership 21, 2024, and filed an Application on three Answer on April 2, 2024.
Defendants, and served ex Additionally, billing includes parte notice of the hearing time spent on the Ex Parte date.” Application to Appoint Receiver. Therefore, all hours and costs requested are stricken.
1 This refers to the paragraph in Mr. Trujillo’s declaration filed on April 7, 2026. 2
Finally, the description in Paragraph 11 of Mr. Trujillo’s Supplemental Declaration regarding the number of hours spent on drafting the instant motion is excessive at 66.3 hours. The Court deducts 20 hours at $280 per hour, resulting in a total deduction of $5,660.
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART. As detailed above, the Court deducts $10,946 from Plaintiff’s $183,833.95 request for costs and fees. Accordingly, the Court awards attorney fees and costs totaling $172,887.95. Defendant shall reimburse this amount to Plaintiff within 30 days after the Court’s final order is entered.
Plaintiff retains the right to submit additional requests for reimbursement of further fees and costs incurred through the final termination of this action to the Receiver. Such requests will require Court approval, including any additional costs and fees related to drafting the fee-and-cost motion. Reimbursement shall be payable to “City of Monterey” and sent to: “City of Monterey, Attention Kimberly Cole, Community Development Director, 580 Pacific Street, Monterey, California 93940.”
Plaintiff shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling. The Status Conference set for May 15, 2026, is MAINTAINED.
3