Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. RIC427525
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION, AND DENYING MOTIONS AND PETITION FOR REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
MILLER, J.
THE COURT:
The court CONSTRUES appellant’s motion filed May 8, 2009, (for correction of error in the tentative opinion) and appellant’s motion filed July 2, 2009, (to vacate submission and reset oral argument), to be part of appellant’s separately filed petition for rehearing, as all the matters raise the same issues. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.268(b).)
The petition for rehearing, of which the motions are deemed a part, is DENIED.
The opinion, filed July 1, 2009, is MODIFIED as follows:
1. On page 8 of the slip opinion the second full sentence (beginning “Plaintiff’s motion claimed...”) is replaced by the following language: “Plaintiff’s motion claimed 131.8 hours; plaintiff’s counsel averred that he normally billed $275 per hour, but that the retainer agreement here included a $25 per hour discount.”
2. The first full paragraph on page 8 of the slip opinion (beginning “The amount the trial court awarded...”) is replaced by the following language: “The amount the trial court awarded, $15,000, although substantially less than plaintiff’s counsel had claimed, was reasonable under all the circumstances. The claim included, e.g., thousands of dollars in ‘service charges’ at two percent per month on any unpaid balance. Defendant’s motion to tax costs also pointed out other items she argued were excessive. The trial court could properly disregard these items as padding, inflation, or excess. In addition, the general lodestar amount of fees may be adjusted for factors such as the nature and difficulty of the litigation, the amount involved, the skill required and employed to handle the case, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case. This litigation was very simple; it was not difficult or complex. The two parties were the only witnesses. No extraordinary skill was required to litigate the matter. All the circumstances militated against a more than $40,000 award of attorney fees to recover back rent and damage to a security gate, in the amount of just over $37,000.”
Except for these modifications, the opinion remains unchanged. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(c)(2).) The modifications do not affect a change in the judgment.
We concur: GAUT, Acting P. J., KING, J.