In re Mark E. Moon; Lori H. Moon, as personal representative and administrator v. Milestone Financial, LLC

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT SS NG NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA □□□□ Signed and Filed: November 14, 2025 □□ [2] Mini J 2 4 Vin An 0 5 DENNIS MONTALI U.S. Bankruptcy Judge [6] 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [9] In re ) Bankruptcy Case No. 20-30711-DM 10 ) MARK E. MOON, ) Chapter 11 11 ) 12 ) Debtor. ) 13 ) LORI H. MOON, as personal ) Adversary Case No. 22-3106-DM 14 representative and ) 15 administrator, ) ) 16 Plaintiff, ) HEARING HELD ) Date: October 17, 2025 17 ) Time: 11:00 a.m. 18 ) Place: 450 Golden Gate Ave MILESTONE FINANCIAL, LLC, ) Courtroom 17 19 ) or via Zoom Defendant. ) [21] MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES [22] 23 The court held a hearing on October 17, 2025 on the Motion 24 Milestone Financial, LLC for Attorneys’ Fees After Judgment 25 (“AP Fee Motion”) (Dkt. 65), and Milestone Financial, LLC’s 26 ||Motion for Attorneys’ Fees After Appeal (“Appeal Fee Motion”) 27 (Dkt. 96) (together, “Motions”). At the conclusion of the 28 ||hearing, the court took the Motions under submission. -_ 1 -_ 1 For the reasons that follow, the Motions will be GRANTED 2 in part. 3 I. Standards Governing Motions for Attorneys’ Fees 4 California law provides that in an action on a contract 5 that contains a fee provision, fees shall be awarded to the 6 prevailing party, even when the provision was drafted to be one7 sided. Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 . 8 “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins 9 with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably 10 expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . The 11 reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for [12] similar work.” PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 , [13] 1095 (Cal. 2000) (citing Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (Cal. 14 1977)). “[T]he relevant community is the forum in which the [15] district court sits.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 979 16 (9th Cir. 2008). The lodestar rate is a “touchstone” the court 17 may adjust by considering other factors, “including the nature 18 of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the 19 skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the 20 attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances [21] in the case. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th at 1096 22 (internal citations omitted). 23 While the lodestar rate and accompanying adjustments are 24 the general starting point for determining reasonable fees, the 25 trial court has sole and wide discretion in determining the 26 reasonable amount of fees and costs, including the rate by which [27] such fees and costs should be calculated. See Syers Properties [28] III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 702-703 (stating 1 not only that the court’s determination of attorneys’ fees was 2 appropriate, but that even if court had come to the opposite 3 conclusion regarding fees that decision would not have been an 4 abuse of discretion). “The value of legal services performed 5 in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own 6 expertise.” PLCM Group, 22 Cal.4th at 1096 . A trial court 7 “need not necessarily explain its analysis in terms of 8 elaborate mathematical calculations” in providing an 9 explanation of its exercise of discretion, so long as its 10 reasoning is understandable. In re Dutta, 175 B.R. 41, 46 (9th 11 Cir. BAP 1994). 12 II. Reasonable Rate 13 Milestone seeks $800 per hour for all work performed during 14 this adversary proceeding, which is the rate previously sought 15 by the Moons’ sole counsel, Mr. McDonnell, and the rate claimed 16 by Milestone as the appropriate lodestar in this instance. As 17 Milestone surely recalls, it argued forcibly against that $800 18 rate by its opponent, in part on the premise that Mr. McDonnell, 19 his clients (and the court, in the main bankruptcy case) had 20 already deemed his charged rate of $425 per hour to be a 21 reasonable rate. Now, Milestone no longer feels that the only 22 reasonable measure of fees is that which has already been 23 approved by a client or the court. While the caselaw cited by 24 Milestone illustrates that reasonable fees need not be based on 25 amounts actually charged, the court notes the change in 26 position, and the history of fee requests in the previous 27 related adversary proceeding. [28] 1 In that case, the court held that the appropriate lodestar 2 rate was $425, after taking into consideration the following: 3 (1) counsel’s bankruptcy experience; (2) the narrow set of 4 issues argued before the court; (3) the amount of relevant 5 briefing submitted; (4) the amount of work that could have been 6 done by paralegals or associates that was done by Mr. McDonnell 7 and thus came with a partner-level price tag. Taking all the 8 factors into consideration, the court determined the rate of a 9 partner with fewer than 21 years of experience was appropriate, 10 and the amount actually charged by Mr. McDonnell fell within 11 that band of reasonable rates. 12 The court weighs the same factors in considering 13 Milestone’s request in the Motions. First, counsel collectively 14 has extensive bankruptcy experience, with Mr. Cohen having 15 decades more of bankruptcy experience, which likely means that 16 he was more efficient in this court. 17 Second, the issues before the court were narrow, not 18 bankruptcy related, and amounted to a relatively simple factual 19 dispute. The Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 31) sought to hold 20 Milestone liable for failure to timely provide an accurate 21 payoff demand upon request in contravention of California law, 22 for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and 23 for intentional interference with a contract by those failures. 24 While technically five causes of action were asserted, all stem 25 from the same alleged act (or non-act) by Milestone and were 26 thus resolvable as a whole. 27 Third, the briefing submitted by Milestone was all relevant 28 to the causes of action presented against it. While efficiencies in outcome could have perhaps been increased had [1] Milestone filed a countermotion for summary judgment as opposed [2] to defeating Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [3] (Dkt. 34) prior to filing its own dispositive Motion for [4] Summary Judgment (Dkt. 46), no irrelevant briefing was [5] submitted. [6] In sum, Mr. Kornberg and Ms. Lau both operate at a level [7] of a partner with less than 21 years of experience, and Mr. [8] Cohen operates at the level of a partner with more than 21 [9] years of experience. Some slight upward adjustment to Mr. [10] Cohen’s contribution is appropriate. Thus, the same lodestar [11] of $425 per hour applied to Mr. McDonnell should be applied to [12] Mr. Kornberg and Ms. Lau, and a higher lodestar rate of $600 [13] per hour should be applied to Mr. Cohen. For the sake of [14] efficiency, a blended hourly rate of $515 is appropriate for [15] the nature and complexity of this adversary proceeding. That [16] is the blended rate the court will apply across the board. [17] 18 III. Reasonable Hours 19 Courts may exclude hours that were not “reasonably expended.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). [20] “Hours that are not properly billed to one’s client also are [21] not properly billed to one’s adversary.” Id. at 434 (quotations [22] omitted) (emphasis in original). [23] Milestone submits that regarding the adversary proceeding, [24] 219.65 hours have been reasonably expended at the lodestar [25] rate, along with 4.2 hours of paralegal level work at two [26] different levels for a total amount of $535. The court will [27] not question reasonableness of the time spent on the lower-level [28] 1 work and will only focus on the high-level hours claimed by 2 Milestone’s counsel. 3 First, as to the AP Fee Motion, Ms. Lau charged 1 hour for 4 attending a deposition that ultimately did not take place, 2.5 5 hours for observing a deposition taken by Mr. Kornberg, and 3.5 6 hours for attending a scheduling conference and hearing on 7 Milestone’s Motion for Summary Judgment. She did not make any 8 argument or otherwise participate in those hearings. These 9 hours are duplicative and not compensable. 10 Mr. Kornberg charged 3.7 hours for the deposition that 11 did not take place and 0.2 hours for work that was also billed 12 in the Appeal Fee Motion. The court agrees with Plaintiff 13 that 2.7 of the 3.7 deposition hours are not compensable, and 14 Milestone has already agreed to remove the 0.2 hour charged as 15 an improper time entry. 16 The court finds no issue with the amount or nature of the 17 work performed and charged by Mr. Cohen. 18 Next, as to the Appeal Fee Motion, Milestone has already 19 agreed to reduce its fee request to a total of 58.4 hours. 20 Upon review of the timesheets, the court does not find the time 21 to be duplicative and no other reductions appear appropriate. 22 The court finds no other reason to make any reductions to 23 the reasonable rate or hours as determined above. 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 The Motions are GRANTED in part. The reasonable rate of 26 compensation is a blended rate of $515 per hour, and the 27 reasonable amount of time worked to be compensated is 210.75 28 hours plus $535 (in paralegal and discounted fees) of 1 compensable work on the AP Fee Motion and 58.4 hours on the 2 Appeal Fee Motion. The court awards Milestone a total of 3 $109,071.25 on the AP Fee Motion and a total of $30,076 on the 4 Appeal Fee Motion in reasonable attorneys’ fees to be paid by 5 Plaintiff. Counsel for Milestone is directed to serve and 6 upload an appropriate final order for the respective Motions 7 for fees and costs consistent with this Memorandum Decision. [8] 9 **END OF MEMORANDUM DECISION** [28] COURT SERVICE LIST [1] 2 ECF Recipients