Preview
21SMCV01609
Assigned for all purposes to: Beverly Hills Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Helen Zukin
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/30/2021 03:30 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Mohammadi,Deputy Clerk
1 Michael I. Weiss, Esq. [SBN 163814]
LAW OFFICES OF LERNER & WEISS,
2 A Professional Corporation
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 1130
3 Woodland Hills, California 91367
4 Telephone: (818) 986-0893 * Facsimile: (818) 385-3576
5 File No.: 18222
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Dean Mckillen
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
8
SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE, UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
9
10
DEAN MCKILLEN, an individual, ) Case No.:
11 )
Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF
12
) PROMISSORY NOTE
13 vs. )
)
14 ZACHARY VELLA, aka ZACH VELLA, an )
individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, )
15 )
16 Defendants. )
---------------- )
17
18
Plaintiff, Dean Mckillen, an individual (hereinafter "MCKILLEN"), alleges as follows:
19
DEFINITIONS AND PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS:
20
1. Plaintiff Mckillen is an individual, with his principal place of business in the City
21
of West Hollywood, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
22
2. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Zachary Vella, aka Zach Vella, is an
23
individual (hereinafter "VELLA"), with his principal place of business in City of West Hollywood,
24
County of Los Angeles, State of California.
25
3. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
26
otherwise, of the defendants herein designated DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are unknown to
27
plaintiff. Plaintiff will ask leave of the court to amend this Complaint to show their true names and
28
capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of
COMPLAINT Page 1
Printed on Recycled Paper
1 these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein
2 alleged, and that plaintiff's damages were proximately caused by their conduct.
3 4. On infonnation and belief, at all times mentioned herein, each of the defendants
4 were and are the duly authorized agents, co-partners, co-tenants, and co-lessees of each of the said
5 co-defendants, and at all times herein mentioned acted within the course and scope of such agency,
6 partnership, co-tenancy and lease; and each of the acts perfonned by each of the said co-defendants
7 as hereinafter alleged was done with the express or implied consent of the other said co-defendants
8 and for the common benefit of all said co-defendants.
9 5. On information and belief, there exists now and has existed at all times mentioned
10 herein, a unity of interest and ownership by and between VELLA, an individual, and DOES 1
11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, so that any individuality and separateness between said
12 defendants, if any ever existed, has ceased; that each of said defendants is the alter ego of the other,
13 and that any adherence to the fiction of said defendants would sanction the wrongful conduct
14 complained of herein.
15 6. The obligations and claims sued upon herein were made and entered into and are
16 due and payable in the above mentioned judicial district and county, State of California, and are not
17 subject to the provisions of §1812.10 and 2984.4 of the California Civil Code, and §395(b) of the
18 California Code ofCivil Procedure.
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (Breach of Promissory Note)
21 (Against Defendant VELLA and DOES 1-25)
22 7. Paragraphs 1 through 6, inclusive, above are incorporated herein as if fully set
23 forth.
24 8. On June 24, 2021, Defendant VELLA entered into a Promissory Note (the
25 "Promissory Note") with MCKILLEN. A true and correct copy of the Promissory Note is
26 attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
27 9. The Promissory Note called for VELLA to make a payment in the principal sum
28 of Four Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars ($447,162.00), plus
COMPLAINT Page2
Printed on Recycled Paper
1 interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. In the event of a default in the terms of the
2 Promissory Note, the interest would increase to twelve percent (12%) per annum.
3 10. The maturity date for the Promissory Note was July 6, 2021.
4 11. No payment was made by VELLA with reference to the Promissory Note on or
5 before July 6, 2021.
6 12. On September 22, 2021, counsel, on behalf of MCKILLEN sent a Notice of
7 Default on Promissory Note and Demand for Payment, providing VELLA until September 24,
8 2021, to make payment on the outstanding balance of the Promissory Note. A true and correct
9 copy of the Notice of Default on Promissory Note and Demand for Payment is attached hereto as
10 Exhibit 2.
11 13. No payment was made by VELLA with reference to the Promissory Note on or
12 before September 24, 2021.
13 14. Plaintiff has performed all of the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note on
14 its part to be performed.
15 15. Plaintiff has declared Defendant VELLA in default under the terms of the
16 Promissory Note in that Defendant has failed to make the agreed upon payment with reference to
17 the Promissory Note.
18 16. Defendant has failed and refuses and continues to fail and refuses to pay the
19 outstanding balance of the Promissory Note.
20 17. The full balance of the Promissory Note is now due, owing and unpaid from
21 VELLA to MCKILLEN.
22 ///
23 ///
24 Ill
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT Page 3
Printed on Recycled Paper
18. The Promissory Note, in paragraph 6 indicates that in the event of a default,
2 MCKILLEN, as Holder, shall be entitled to recover all fees and costs of collection, including but
3 not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees
4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as
6 follows:
7 1. For damages, in the sum of $447,162.00, together with interest thereon at the rate
8 of 12% per annum from June 24, 2021;
9 2. For costs of suit incurred herein;
10 3. For attorney's fees per contract; and,
11 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
12 Dated: September 28, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF LERNER & WEISS,
A Professional Corporation
13
14
15
G .
. J£
MICHAEL I. WEISS
f2~
;
Attorneys for Plaintiff, DEAN MCKILLEN
·
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COMPLAINT Page4
Printed on Recycled Paper
EXHIBIT 1
PROMISSORY NOTE
This Promissory Note (the "Note") is executed as of June 24, 2021 (the "Effective
Date,,) by Zach Vella, an individual (the "Borrower"), for the benefit of Dean McKillen,
an individual ("Holder").
1. Loan. Borrower promises to pay, at such place as Holder may designate, the
principal sum of$447,162.00 (the "Principal"), together with interest, as provided below.
2. Interest Rate. Borrower shall pay to Holder simple.interest at the rate of 5% per
year, compounded annually. Upon the occurrence of and during the continuation of a
default under this Note, the entire Principal balance together with accrued interest thereon
shall bear interest at a default rate equal to the lesser of (a) 12.0% per year and (b) the
maximum rate allowed by applicable law.
3. Maturity. This Note matures on July 6, 2021.
4. Payment. Borrower promises to make a single, final payment for the entire
balance owed to Holder (interest and Principal) upon maturity.
5. Prepayment. The entire Principal balance (or any portion) may be prepaid at
any time prior to maturity without penalty.
6. Default and Fees. Should Borrower default in the payment of interest or
Principal within five days of when due, all amounts due under this Note shall, at the option
of Holder, be immediately due and payable without further demand or notice. In the event
of a default, Holder shall be entitled to recover all fees and costs of collection, including
but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees.
7. Waiver. Borrower hereby waives all notices, demands and presentments for
payment, all notices of default, nonpayment, intention to accelerate maturity, acceleration
of maturity, protest and dishonor, and diligence in tal
Related Content
in Los Angeles County
Ruling
YOUNG CHOW DAI VS PAUL P. CHENG & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.
Jul 30, 2024 |
Echo Dawn Ryan |
18STCV10177
Case Number:
18STCV10177
Hearing Date:
July 30, 2024
Dept:
26
Dai v. Paul P. Cheng & Associates, et al.
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff Young Chow Dais Motion for Leave is DENIED.
ANALYSIS:
On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff Young Chow Dai (Plaintiff) filed the instant action against Defendants Paul P. Cheng & Associates and Marsha S. Mao. Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on October 4, 2019 against Defendants Paul P. Cheng (Defendant Cheng), Marsha S. Mao (Defendant Mao), and Law Offices of Paul P. Cheng & Associates (Defendant Cheng & Associates). The SAC, which arises from alleged wrongful actions in connection with a settlement agreement, alleges causes of action for: (1) accounting; and (2) fraud.
On February 7, 2023, Defendant Cheng filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ). On March 1, 2023, Defendant Cheng filed a motion to deem the truth of the matters in Defendants Requests for Admission, Set One, served on Plaintiff, admitted and for monetary sanctions. On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer venue to the Santa Monica Courthouse.
On July 24, 2023, after hearing and oral argument, the Court: (1) granted the MSJ filed by Defendant Cheng; (2) granted Defendant Chengs motion to deem the truth of the matters in Defendants Requests for Admission, Set One, as admitted and awarded Defendant monetary sanctions; and (3) denied Plaintiffs motion to transfer and change venue. (Minute Order, 07/24/23.) On August 4, 2023, Defendant Cheng filed and served Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order as to the Courts July 24, 2023 order.
On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter a New and Different Judgment
. On August 8, 2023, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant Cheng and against Plaintiff. The Courts order for entry of summary judgment provides that Plaintiffs case against Defendant Paul P. Cheng is therefore dismissed with prejudice. (Minute Order, 08/08/23, p. 3:1-4.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter a New and Different Judgment on August 11, 2023. Plaintiff filed similar motions to vacate on August 25, 2023 and September 29, 2023.
In a ruling considering all three Motions to Vacate, the Court denied the request to vacate the judgment on January 17, 2024. (Minute Order, 01/17/24.) Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 23, 2024. The Motion for Reconsideration was denied on March 26, 2024. (Minute Order, 03/26/24.) On April 16, 2024, the Court granted Defendants Motion to Deem Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. (Minute Order, 04/16/24.) Plaintiff sought to challenge that ruling via a motion in Department 1, which was denied on June 27, 2024. (Minute Order, 06/27/24.)
The instant Motion for Leave was filed by Plaintiff on May 2, 2024. The Motion was originally set for hearing on July 3, 2024 and then continued to July 30, 2024. Defendant filed an opposition on July 24, 2024.
The instant Motion does not explain what relief is sought or on what basis.
The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(b).) Indeed, Plaintiffs failure to provide a memorandum as required by the Rule is an admission that the [request] is without merit and cause for its denial. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(a), (b);
In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke
(2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 976.) As the Court cannot discern what relief Plaintiff seeks or the legal basis for any relief, the Motion for Leave is denied.
Conclusion
Plaintiff Young Chow Dais Motion for Leave is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.
Ruling
THE MANIJEH SHAMS TRUST, ET AL. VS FARIBA JAVAHERPOUR
Jul 26, 2024 |
22BBCV00226
Case Number:
22BBCV00226
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
A LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK
DEPARTMENT A
TENTATIVE RULING
JANUARY 25, 2024
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 22BBCV00226
MP:
THE MANIJUE SHAMS TRUST AND MANIJEH SHAMS (Plaintiff)
RP:
FARIBA JAVAHEROUR, ET AL (Defendant)
All parties are requested to appear either in person or via LA Court Connect to address the tentative ruling.
Brief Summary of Requested Relief
The Court has read and considered Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Settlement, Defendants opposition, as well as Defendants Further Opposition to the Motion.
The parties entered into a settlement as set forth in Plaintiffs moving papers, which included a CCP §664.6 provision.
Defendant has declined to sign the written settlement agreement until Plaintiff amends her trust to reflect that the settlement of $60,000 will inure to the benefit of the Plaintiffs grandchildren, specifically the children of Plaintiffs deceased son, Massoud Bahmanyar.
The parties appear to be at an impasse.
Ruling on Motion to Enforce Settlement
Pursuant to CCP §664.6, a Court has continuing jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement.
As such, the Court exercises its authority under CCP §664.6 and orders the following be completed within the next 30 days:
1.
Plaintiff Manijeh Shams is to create a new irrevocable trust: The Manijeh Shams Irrevocable Grandchild Trust in which she is the primary beneficiary, and the children of Massoud Bahmanyar are the contingent beneficiaries.
Manijeh Shams shall be the initial trustee, with a successor trustee to be named by Ms. Shams in the trust.
2.
The terms of the trust will include that the $60,000 settlement, as well as any earnings, may be used for the direct support of the settlor, and upon settlors death will inure to the benefit of Massoud Bahmanyars children in equal parts
per stirpes
. In the event that any grandchild predeceases the settlor, that grandchilds share shall inure to the grandchilds children
per stirpes.
In the event that a deceased grandchild has no children, the share shall be divided equally among the remaining living grandchildren.
3.
Defendant Fariba Javaherpour shall deposit the total sum of $60,000 into the newly established trust within ten days of being informed that the new irrevocable trust has been established and a bank account in the name of the new trust is set up.
4.
The Manijeh Shams Irrevocable Grandchild Trust shall be subject to Part 4, Chapter 1 of the California Probate Code, beginning at §16060 et seq., including but not limited, to §§16062 and 16063.
Upon request from any contingent beneficiary, the contingent beneficiaries shall have a right directly, or through their representative if minors, to have an accounting no more than annually.
The accounting may be informal, and the cost of the accounting shall be incurred by the trust.
Any contingent beneficiary has the right to petition the court for a formal accounting if there is a prima facie basis to believe that the informal accounting does not properly reflect the trust distributions and expenses.
5.
The individual trustee shall not be entitled to compensation for administration of the trust, nor shall any bond be required of any individual trustee.
A professional or commercial trustee shall be entitled to compensation as permitted by law.
Manijeh Shams may propose specific language to the Court if necessary, with objections and alternative language being proposed by Defendant Fariba Javaherpour.
The Court sets a Status Conference Re: Settlement Agreement compliance for August 8, 2024 at 10:00 AM.
ORDER
The Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement c
ame on for hearing on July 25, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:
THE MOTION TO ENFORCE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF TO CREATE NEW IRREVOCABLE TRUST CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT MEMORIALIZED IN THE COURTS PRIOR MINUTE ORDER.
NEW IRREVOCABLE TRUST SHALL CONTAIN THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THIS RULING.
DEFENDANT IS TO FUND THE TRUST WITHIN 10 DAYS OF BEING NOTIFIED OF THE NEW TRUSTS CREATION AND BEING PROVIDED BANKING INFORMATION IN THE NAME OF THE NEW TRUST.
STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT COMPLIANCE IS AUGUST 8, 2024 AT 10:00 AM.
UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 26, 2024
_______________________________
F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Ruling
MARIA PADILLA, ET AL. VS JOSEPH HEFFESSE, ET AL.
Jul 29, 2024 |
23STCV15942
Case Number:
23STCV15942
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Dept:
53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles Central District
Department 53
maria padilla
, et al.;
Plaintiffs
,
vs.
joseph heffesse,
as trustee of the Coldwater Canyon Trust
, et al.;
Defendants
.
Case No.:
23STCV15942
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Time:
10:00 a.m.
[tentative] Order
RE:
petition for approval of compromise of claim for minor claimant anthony jayden diaz
MOVING PARTY:
Petitioner Jeanette Oliveros
RESPONDING PARTY:
Unopposed
Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim for Minor Claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz
The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this petition.
No opposition papers were filed.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff and petitioner Jeanette Oliveros (Petitioner) seeks court approval of the settlement made on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz (Minor Claimant) in this action.
The compromise of a minors disputed claim for damages is valid only after it has been approved, upon the filing of a petition, by the court.¿ (Prob. Code, § 3500.)¿ The petition must be verified by the petitioner, must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing upon the reasonableness of the compromise, and must be prepared on Judicial Council form MC-350.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)¿
Defendants Joseph Heffesse, as trustee of the Coldwater Canyon Trust, Sandra B. Sternberg Heffesse, and LA Properties Heffesse LLC have agreed to pay a total of $175,000 to settle this action, of which $5,000 will be separately allocated to Minor Claimant.
(MC-350, ¶¶ 10-11.)
Of the $5,000 allocated to Minor Claimant, $1,250 will be paid to counsel for attorneys fees and $134.35 will be paid to counsel for legal costs.
(MC-350, ¶¶ 13, 16.)
The remaining $3,615.65 will be paid or delivered to the parent of Minor Claimant, i.e., Petitioner, without bond, on the terms and under the conditions specified in Probate Code sections 3401-3402.
(MC-350, ¶ 18, subd. (b)(5); MC-350, Attachment 18b(5), Oliveros Decl., ¶¶ 1-2, 6; Prob. Code, §§ 3401, 3402.)
The court has reviewed the petition and finds the settlement to be fair and reasonable, and in the best interest of Minor Claimant.
The court further finds that the declaration of Rachel Fishenfeld is sufficient to support the request for attorneys fees in the amount of $1,250 (representing 25 percent of the $5,000 settlement).
(Fishenfeld Decl., ¶¶ 2-3, 6-11; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 7.955.)
The court therefore grants Petitioners petition.
ORDER
The court grants petitioner Jeanette Oliveross petition for approval of compromise of claim on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz.
The court orders that the $3,615.65 settlement on behalf of minor claimant Anthony Jayden Diaz may be paid to plaintiff and petitioner Jeanette Oliveros pursuant to Probate Code sections 3401 and 3402.
The court orders petitioner Jeanette Oliveros to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
July 29, 2024
_____________________________
Robert B. Broadbelt III
Judge of the Superior Court
Ruling
IRENE YOUNG, ET AL. VS PACIFIC PLAZA ELITE - ALHAMBRA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-20;
Jul 31, 2024 |
22STCV08879
Case Number:
22STCV08879
Hearing Date:
July 31, 2024
Dept:
20
Tentative Ruling
Judge Kevin C. Brazile
Department 20
Hearing Date:
July 31, 2024
Case Name:
Young, et al. v. Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association, et
al.
Case No.:
22STCV08879
Matter:
Motions to Compel Further Responses (4x)
Moving Party:
Plaintiffs Irene Young and Jesse Chang
Responding Party:
Defendant Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association
Notice:
OK
Ruling:
The Motion as to Requests for Production is granted in part.
The Motions as to Form Interrogatories and Request for Admission
are granted.
Moving parties to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly
encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiffs Irene Young and Jesse Chang seek to compel further responses from Defendant Pacific Plaza Elite-Alhambra Homeowners Association as to their requests for production, set two, form interrogatories, set two, request for admission no. 15.
Request for Admission
Request for Admission no. 15 states, Admit that YOU have not repaired the defects that were the subject of the CONSTRUCTION DEFECT DISPUTE.
Previously, Defendant responded: After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter contained in this request, admit in part and deny in part. The Court compelled a further response because there was no specificity as to what was admitted and denied.
Defendant then served the following amended response that is the subject of the current Motion: After a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter contained in this request, to the best of Responding Partys knowledge, the Developer has completed the repairs to Plaintiffs property and therefore responds: Deny.
Plaintiffs argue that this is evasive because the request did not relate to the Developer, who is never identified in the response anyway. They also contend that it is unclear whether the phrase Plaintiffs property relates to Plaintiffs unit or the entire condominium building that was the subject of the CONSTRUCTION DEFECT DISPUTE.
The Motion to Compel is granted. A further response should be provided in 10 days that (a) admits that Defendant itself did not do the repairs at issue, but (b) denies that the repairs were never done, because the developer, Pacific Plaza Investments, LLC, addressed them. This would seem to better embody a response that complies with CCP § 2033.220. The Court declines to award sanctions.
Form Interrogatories (2x)
The next Motions pertain to form interrogatory no. 17.1 as it relates to requests for admission nos. 7 and 15.
Given that the Court has required a further response for RFA no. 15, a further accompanying response should also be provided for FI no. 17.1.
With respect to request no. 7, the response for form interrogatory no. 17.1 is deficient. No facts or documents are specifically identified and no contact information is provided for Partners Community Management.
Thus, the Motions to Compel are grantedfurther responses are required within 30 days. The Court awards reduced sanctions to Plaintiffs in the amount of $750.
Requests for Production
With respect to the requests for production, Defendant contends that supplemental documents were served such that the Motion is moot. Defendant, however, never addresses its actual responses. The Motion is granted as to request nos. 1-7, 9-12, 15-22 because the non-privilege objections lack merit and Defendant should provide updated responses in which documents are identified with Bates numbers. For its privilege log, Defendant should indicate recipients and authors.
With respect to request nos. 8, 13, 14, 24, and 25, Defendant should provide a response that complies with Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230. The Motion is denied without prejudice as to request no. 23, which seems to target predominantly privileged matters. Further responses are to be provided within 30 days. The Court awards Plaintiffs reduced sanctions in the amount of $750.
Moving parties to give notice.
If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ruling
FLOSSIE C PARUNGAO VS RONAL B. BIBONIA, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE THE RONALD B. BIBONIA AND WILFRED T. CO REVOCABLE TRUST DATED NOV
Jul 30, 2024 |
23PSCV02165
Case Number:
23PSCV02165
Hearing Date:
July 30, 2024
Dept:
K
Defendant Ronald B. Bibonias Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Defendant Bibonia is ordered to file an Answer within 10 days.
Wilfred T. Cos Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED in part (i.e., as to the first through fourth, sixth and seventh, and ninth causes of action). The court will inquire of the parties whether leave to amend should be granted.
Background
Plaintiff Flossie C. Parungao (Plaintiff) alleges as follows: Plaintiff and Wilfred T. Co aka Winnifredo T. Co (Co) are siblings. In June 2004, Plaintiff located and negotiated the purchase of the property located at 302 S. Loraine Ave., Glendora, California 91741 (Property) to serve as her residence. Co offered to assist Plaintiff with the purchase of the subject property. Plaintiff and Co agreed that (1) Co would co-sign the purchase financing documents and take record title to the subject property, (2) Plaintiff would provide all of the funds needed for the down payment and closing costs, (3) Plaintiff would thereafter directly pay or provide funds for payment of the loan, property taxes, insurance and other subject property related-expenses, and that (4) upon request from Plaintiff, Co would execute such documents and take such other actions as might be needed to evidence he had no interest in the subject property other than the bare record title he would be relinquishing (Contract). Plaintiff did all things required of her under the Contract.
In 2023, Plaintiff asked Co to sign over record title to her; Co refused. Plaintiffs ensuing investigation revealed that Co transferred the subject property into the Ronald B. Bibonia and Wilfred T. Co Revocable Trust dated November 24, 2020 (Trust).
On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Co, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Trust, Ronald Bibonia (Bibonia), individually and as Co-Trustee of the Trust (collectively Defendants), and Does 1-50 for:
1.
Specific Performance of Oral Contract
2.
Breach of Oral Contract
3.
Fraud [Promise Without Intent to Perform]
4.
Intentional Misrepresentation
5.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
6.
Conversion
7.
Violation of Penal Code § 496
8.
Quiet Title
9.
Accounting
10.
Imposition of Constructive Trust
On April 26, 2024, the court sustained with leave to amend the demurrer as to the first through fourth, and sixth and seventh causes of action. It also overruled the demurrer as to fifth and eighth causes of action. On May 16, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against Co, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Trust, Bibonia, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Trust (collectively Defendants), and Does 1-50 for:
1.
Specific Performance of Oral Contract
2.
Breach of Oral Contract
3.
Fraud [Promise Without Intent to Perform]
4.
Intentional Misrepresentation
5.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
6.
Conversion
7.
Violation of Penal Code § 496
8.
Quiet Title
9.
Accounting
10.
Imposition of Constructive Trust
A Case Management Conference is set for July 30, 2024.
Legal Standard
A demurrer may be made on the grounds that the pleading,
inter alia
, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (
Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co.
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (
SKF Farms v. Superior Court
(1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [citations omitted].) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (
Semole v. Sansoucie
(1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) [A] demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction placed on an instrument pleaded therein, or facts impossible in law, or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial knowledge. (
S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen
(1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [citations omitted].)
Discussion
Defendants demur, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), to the first through ninth causes of action in Plaintiffs complaint, on the basis that they each fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action and are uncertain.
[1]
Request for Judicial Notice
The court rules on Defendants Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) as follows: Granted as to Exhibit A (i.e., deed of trust recorded April 11, 2007).
Merits
As to Bibonia
Bibonia contends that the demurrer should be summarily sustained as it pertains to him, on the basis that the FAC is again completely devoid of factual allegations against him. (Dem., 18:9). A review of the FAC demonstrates that Bibonia was not contractually bound based on the alleged oral contract but merely listed on the Propertys title. Plaintiffs contention that Bibonia is a beneficiary to the property is insufficient to allege his involvement in the alleged oral agreement. Nevertheless, Bibonias name on the Propertys title is sufficient to include him on the eighth cause of action for quiet title. As a result, Bibonias demurrer is sustained on this basis as to causes of action one through seven, and nine without leave to amend.
As to Co
First and Second Causes of Action (i.e., Specific Performance of Oral Contract and Breach of Oral Contract, Respectively)
[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendants breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. (
Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman
(2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) Plaintiff has alleged that in June 2004, she located and negotiated the purchase of the Property to serve as her residence and that [a]t the time, . . . [her brother] Co offered to assist [her] with the purchase of the Property (FAC, ¶¶ 7 and 8); that she and Co agreed that (1) Co would assist [her] by co-signing the purchase financing documents and taking record title to the Property, (2) [she] would provide all of the funds needed for the down payment and closing costs, (3) [she] would thereafter directly pay or provide funds for the payment of the loan, property taxes, insurance and other Property related expenses, and (4) upon request from [her, Co would execute such documents and take such other actions as might be needed to evidence he had no interest in the Property other than the bare record title he would be relinquishing (Contract) (
Id.
). Co first argues that the alleged oral contract is barred by the Statute of Frauds. (See Civil Code § 1624, subd. (a)(3) [The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the parts agent: . . . (3) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein . . .]
On April 26, 2024, the court overruled the demurrer on statute of frauds grounds.
As a result, the court will not consider the Statute of Frauds argument. Co next argues that the alleged oral contract fails for lack of consideration. (See Civ. Code § 1550 [It is essential to the existence of a contract that there should be: 1. Parties capable of contracting; 2. Their consent; 3. A lawful object; and, 4. A sufficient cause or consideration].) Plaintiffs only response is that making substantial payments over an extended period of time constitutes consideration. (See Opposition at 14.) Plaintiff relies on
Flojo International, Inc. v. Lassleben
(1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 713, 719, in support of her contention. However,
Flojo
does not support her contention. In
Flojo
, a former distributor of products for a company obtained ownership of the company, extinguished the debts the company owned to the distributor, and provided the former owner royalty rights for future sale of goods. (
Id
. at 719-20.) The court reversed an order granting summary judgment and held that consideration to the companys prior owner in extinguishing debt was sufficient reason or consideration to bind the company. (
Id
. at 720.) Here, Plaintiff again fails to articulate the consideration that Co received. Her contention that other family members benefited by making the Property available as a residence for a sibling demonstrates a sibling promissory estoppel cause of action more so than an oral agreement. Moreover, it appears this alleged consideration was not alleged as part of the original oral agreement. The demurrer is sustained.
Third and Fourth Causes of Action (i.e., Fraud [Promise Without Intent to Perform and
Intentional Misrepresentation, Respectively)
The essential allegations of an action for fraud are a misrepresentation, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage. (
Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz
(1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 109.)
Promissory fraud is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit. A promise to do something necessarily implies the intention to perform; hence, where a promise is made without such intention, there is an implied misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud. (
Lazar v. Superior Court
(1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Co asserts that there is no actionable misrepresentation because, [Plaintiff] herself failed to perform her own obligations under the alleged agreement, including (1) failure to co-sign for the loan and (2) failure to pay off the mortgage as agreed. (Dem., 13:15-17). Plaintiff alleges that Co promised beginning in 2004 that he would execute documents and take such [] actions as might be needed to evidence he had no interest in the Property other than the bare record title he would be relinquishing (Promise). (FAC ¶ 23.) However, there is no specificity as to the specific false statements made by Co. (
Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
(1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.) In fact, it is unclear what actionable statements are alleged in the FAC except for that found in paragraph 30 in the FAC (I will do that.). (
People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Discovery Radiology Physicians, P.C.
(2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 521, 549.) Because the consideration (i.e. as to Co) under the alleged oral agreement is ambiguous, the statement in paragraph 30 does not provide the necessary sufficiency to support a claim because the extent of the agreement has not been fully described. Cos demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action is sustained.
Sixth Cause of Action (i.e., Conversion)
The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiffs ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendants conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. (
Los Angeles Federal Credit Union v. Madatyan
(2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1387
[quotations and citation omitted].) Further, [t]he tort of conversion applies to personal property, not real property. (
Salma v. Capon
(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1295.)
Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Co has repudiated his agreement to replace himself with Plaintiff as record title holder of the Property, denied Plaintiffs interest as owner of the Property. In doing so, Defendants have effectively converted and taken for their own use and benefit all of the monies expended by Plaintiff in connection acquisition [sic] and ownership of the Property. (FAC, ¶ 43).
[2]
Co asserts that Plaintiffs cause of action fails because the Property cannot be the subject of a claim for conversion. Plaintiff, in turn, argues that [w]hat was taken was not real property, but instead a specific corpus of personal propertymoney. . . (Opp., 12:14-15). Plaintiff, however, has not alleged that the monies expended by Plaintiff to live in the property ever went to Co, as opposed to the lender. Cos demurrer to this cause of action is sustained.
Seventh Cause of Action (i.e., Violation of Penal Code § 496)
Penal Code § 496, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part, that [e]very person who
buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
While Co does not provide any authority for his position that Penal Code § 496 does not apply to real property, Plaintiffs allegation portend to allow a lower threshold or burden to obtain more than compensatory damages. As stated before, without greater foundation and briefing, the court will not allow this cause of action to proceed at this time. Cos demurrer to this cause of action is sustained.
Ninth Cause of Action (i.e., Accounting)
A cause of action for an accounting requires a showing that a relationship exists between the plaintiff and defendant that requires an accounting, and that some balance is due the plaintiff that can only be ascertained by an accounting. (
Teselle v. McLoughlin
(2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 156, 179.) Plaintiff has alleged that she is entitled to an accounting of all loans and other transactions secured by or relating in any way to the Property from 2004 to the present, an accounting of any charges or liens against the Property resulting from the conduct and activities of Defendant, as well as an accounting of all property and other assets obtained or derived by Defendants with funds borrowed against or otherwise obtained with respect to the Property. (FAC, ¶ 55). As the court held before, Plaintiff has not alleged that Co ever received any monies for the Property from Plaintiff or anyone else in connection with the Property at any time. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged that Co encumbered the Property at any time. Cos demurrer to this cause of action is sustained.
[1]
The court previously overruled the demurrer as to the fifth and eighth causes of action. (See Order, April 26, 2024.) As a result, the court will consider only the demurrer as to the first through fourth, sixth and seventh, and ninth causes of action.
[2]
It appears Plaintiff failed to edit the FAC as the same grammatical mistakes are repeated in both versions.
Ruling
MAIN CO., LLC VS JANNA SIMON LEWIS
Jul 29, 2024 |
24STCV08420
Case Number:
24STCV08420
Hearing Date:
July 29, 2024
Dept:
47
Tentative Ruling
Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47
HEARING DATE:
July 29, 2024
TRIAL DATE:
None Set
CASE:
Main Co. LLC v. Janna Simon Lewis
CASE NO.:
24STCV08420
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
MOVING PARTY
: Plaintiff Main Co., LLC
RESPONDING PARTY(S)
: Defendant Janna Simon Lewis
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent that was filed on April 3, 2024.
Plaintiff moves for
reconsideration of the Courts June 11, 2024 order granting Defendant Janna Simon Lewiss motion for summary judgment.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
DISCUSSION:
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the Courts June 11, 2024 order granting Defendant Janna Simon Lewiss motion for summary judgment.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 provides, in relevant part:
a)
When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and
based upon new or different facts
,
circumstances, or law
, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application
shall state by
affidavit
what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown
.
* * *
(c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.
(d)
A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending.
(e)
This section specifies the courts jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a), (c)-(e) (bold emphasis added).)
Timeliness
A motion for reconsideration must be made within 10 days after service upon the moving party of written notice of entry of the order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) Here, the Court Clerk served notice of the Courts June 11, 2024 ruling granting the Motion for Summary Judgment on June 11, 2024. (April 29, 2024 Notice of Ruling.) This motion followed on June 20, 2024, less than ten days later. (See Proof of Service.) The Court therefore finds that this motion is timely made.
Analysis
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Courts June 11, 2024 order granting Defendant Janna Simon Lewiss motion for summary judgment based on what Plaintiff characterizes as evidence and/or facts and law which were not available or considered at the time of the hearing. The evidence offered consists of a Los Angeles Certificate of Occupancy showing a change in use of the premises to an artist in residence unit on November 29, 1993 and two Document Reports with the same date referring to the same CHG OF USE apparently concerning the same unit. (Declaration of Yousef Monadjemi, ¶¶ 3-5, Exh. D-F.) The motion for reconsideration must be rejected for several reasons.
First, Plaintiff has offered no explanation, much less any evidence, showing why the evidence belatedly presented was not submitted for the Courts consideration in connection with its ruling on Defendants motion for summary judgment. A party moving for reconsideration must show something more than that the new evidence was not previously presented. Instead, reconsideration may only be granted where there is proof that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced the evidence in opposition to the original motion. (
New York Times Co. v. Superior Court
(2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-213.) Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any valid reason for not presenting the new evidence in opposition to Defendants original motion. (
Gilberd v. AC Transit
(1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) As the documents presented are all dated November 29, 1993, the Courts assumption is that they were available to Plaintiff during the pendency of the summary judgment motion, if Plaintiff had sought to secure them for submission to the Court.
Second, the documents recently submitted to the Court are not relevant to the unlawful detainer action before the Court. Plaintiffs complaint alleges: The building in which the premises is located is under L.A.M.C. 150.000 et seq. (1979) as amended, but that defendants unit is exempt from LARSO, because it is an Artist-in-Residence unit. (Complaint, p. 3 & Attachment 17.) As is proper for any motion for summary judgment, Defendants motion was predicated on these allegations of the Complaint and necessarily limited by those allegations. (
Juge v. County of Sacramento
(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67 [The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues].) Defendants summary judgment motion did not contest the exemption now being advanced by Plaintiff, and given the narrow scope of the Complaint, such an exemption could not have been challenged in such a motion. As a result, the motion Plaintiff asserts is not one that calls for reconsideration of the prior motion but rather for a ruling on a separate question that falls outside the scope of this lawsuit.
Finally, the recently submitted evidence does not support the conclusion Plaintiff urges. The exemption relied on excludes housing accommodations from regulation under LARSO if the units are located in a structure for which the first Certificate of Occupancy was issued after October 1, 1978 (L.A.M.C. § 151.02, Rental Units, exemption 6), but the records offered say nothing about when the first Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the structure. The records suggest, however, that there may have been such a certificate previously issued because the documents recognize the building as an existing structure that was used as a Retail/Sro Hotel/Dance Hall building. (Exh. D-F.) Even if considered, therefore, Plaintiffs new evidence does not raise a triable issue of fact that would preclude entry of summary judgment in Defendants favor.
CONCLUSION
:
For the reasons explained above,
Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
Moving Party to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2024 ___________________________________
Theresa M. Traber
Judge of the Superior Court
Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at
Smcdept47@lacourt.org
by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.
Ruling
HAMID REZA MIRSHOJAE, ET AL. VS 5975-5999 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD LLC, ET AL.
Jul 26, 2024 |
21STCV37556
Case Number:
21STCV37556
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
F43 Dept. F43
Date: 7-26-24
Case #21STCV37556,
Hamid Reza Mirshojae, et al. vs. 5975-5999 Topanga Canyon Blvd LLC, et al.
Trial Date: N/A
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Hamid Reza Mirshojae and Woodland Hills Medical Clinic II, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants 5975-5999 Topanga Canyon Blvd, LLC and Ahang Mirshojae
RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs are requesting attorney fees in the amount of $
619,675
, plus $17,036.01 in costs, from Defendants.
RULING
: Motion for attorney fees is granted at a reduced amount. No costs will be awarded at this time.
SUMMARY OF ACTION
Plaintiff Hamid Reza Mirshojae (Hamid) and Defendant Ahang Zarin Mirshojae (Ahang) were formerly married and were engaged in extensive litigation against each other prior to 2017. The assets in dispute were in excess of $20 million. At mediation, Hamid and Ahang entered a complex settlement agreement. Immediately after, Hamid alleges that Ahang breached the settlement agreement, and he was forced to incur attorney fees to enforce various terms of the agreement. Eventually, Hamid filed the current suit to enforce the settlement agreement on October 12, 2021.
Ahang accused Hamid and his counsel of inducing her to sign the settlement agreement and sued him for $7 million in damages. This Court eventually struck Ahangs complaint based on Plaintiffs anti-SLAPP motion and determined that Ahang was a vexatious litigant. After this ruling, Ahang attempted to disqualify Hamids lead counsel, though that motion was rejected. Hamid alleges that he has incurred significant legal fees over the course of this litigation.
Finally, after two years of litigation, the parties settled via a 998 Offer on November 17, 2023. The 998 Offer required Defendants to pay Plaintiffs $270,000 and reasonable fees and costs as determined by the Court. Plaintiffs are requesting attorney fees pursuant to the part of the 998 Offer that allows for reasonable fees to be paid.
Plaintiffs are requesting $619,675 in attorney fees from Defendants. Plaintiffs argue in their motion that the attorney fees and hourly rates are reasonable. Plaintiffs evidence in support of their request for attorney fees included a declaration from their attorney, Christopher Beatty, and billing statements (with some redactions) that show which attorney worked on a task, what the task was, and how much time was spent on the task. (Beatty Decl., Ex. H.) The Beatty Declaration also includes a table which shows the hourly rates of the attorneys who worked on the case and their hourly rates at different times. (Beatty Decl., ¶ 35.)
Christopher Beattys hourly rates were $950 (for 2.5 hours in 2021), $975 (for 19.2 hours in 2022), and $1,300 (for 1.5 hours in 2022 and 71.6 hours in 2023). Tami K. Sims hourly rate was $1,115 (for 83.4 hours in 2023). Trevor T. Garneys hourly rate was $955 (for 87.8 hours in 2023). Arron J. Paks hourly rate was $705 (for 277.3 hours in 2023). Minh-Van Dos hourly rates were $795 (for 0.5 hours in 2021) and $840 (for 76.1 hours in 2022). Benjamin Mandels hourly rate was $595 (for 89.6 hours in 2022). Finally, Scarlet Speakmores hourly rate was $350 (for 38.8 hours in 2022).
The total lodestar was calculated by multiplying each of these attorneys hourly rate by their hours worked then adding them all together. The total hours worked for the attorneys totaled 748.3. The total lodestar amount, as previously noted, is $619,675.
Plaintiffs have also requested costs in the amount $17,036.01. However, costs are awarded pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1700. If Plaintiffs wish to request costs, Plaintiffs should file a memorandum of costs at the appropriate time.
Defendants Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of Keith M. Maziarek:
Sustained: Entire Declaration (irrelevant), Paragraph 11
Overruled: None
Plaintiffs Evidentiary Objections to the Declaration of June D. Coleman and the Declaration of Raffi Kassabian: The individual evidentiary objections presented by Plaintiffs to these two declarations are not consecutively numbered. Typically, when written objections to evidence are filed, the written objection must be number consecutively. (See Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1354 (applies to written objections to evidence for summary judgment motions).) While Plaintiffs listed them by paragraph number from the declarations, this is not necessarily effective, because in some instances Plaintiffs objected to different sentences from the same paragraph and listed them separately with the same paragraph number. The Court will not rule on the individual evidentiary objections based on this procedural deficiency. Plaintiffs have objected to the entire Coleman Declaration on the basis that it is improper expert testimony because Coleman has not shown any special knowledge, skill, etc., related to billing for these types of cases pursuant to Evidence Code § 720. The Court has determined that Coleman has sufficiently demonstrated her special knowledge as a fee expert with this declaration and her recently submitted supplemental declaration. Plaintiffs objection to the entire Coleman Declaration is overruled.
On April 9, 2024, a hearing was held on Plaintiffs motion for attorney fees. That same day, the Court issued a ruling on the submitted matter requesting that the parties submit additional briefing and that Plaintiffs submit invoices that do not redact the lawyers hourly rates or the amounts billed, along with supplemental points and authorities supporting their fee requests in light of that information.
On May 24, 2024, Plaintiffs submitted their supplemental brief. In their brief, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should award standard hourly rates and that the fees sought for all tasks are reasonable. Plaintiffs submitted new billing records that still contain some redactions, but they do not redact the lawyers hourly rates or the amounts billed.
On June 25, 2024, Defendants submitted their supplemental opposition brief. Defendants argue that the Court should significantly reduce the fees requested by Plaintiffs. Defendants also argue that the Court should consider Defendants expert declaration. Defendants also acknowledge that Plaintiffs conceded that the actual hourly rates and amounts billed are not privileged.
ANALYSIS
A prevailing party is entitled to recover its attorneys fees when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (See CCP § 1033.5(a)(10); Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a).) A successful party means a prevailing party, and [a party] may be considered prevailing parties for attorneys fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit. (
Bowman v. City of Berkeley
(2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 173, 178.)
Plaintiffs are the prevailing party by virtue of the fact that the parties settled in Plaintiffs favor via the 998 Offer. Plaintiffs have requested a total of $619,675 in attorney fees.
Defendants previously opposed Plaintiffs motion on the basis that Plaintiffs agreed only to recover fees actually incurred and according to proof in the 998 Offer, and Defendants argued that Plaintiffs have not provided this proof. However, this argument was resolved with Plaintiffs supplemental brief, as Plaintiffs have now provided unredacted hourly rates and amounts billed.
Plaintiffs attorney Christopher D. Beatty acknowledges in his supplemental declaration that the actual amount charged to the client was $543,156. (Beatty Supp. Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendants argue in their supplemental opposition that this should be the baseline from which any reductions in the requested amount should be made. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should only be able to recover fees actually incurred because that is what the 998 Offer between the parties allowed. (See
San Dieguito Pship, L.P. v. San Dieguito River Valley Regl Open Spake Park Joint Powers Auth.
(1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 910, disapproved on other grounds by
PLCM Group v. Drexler
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084.) The Court agrees. Plaintiffs should only recover the fees actually incurred, which in this case is, at a maximum, $543,156.
Next, Defendants contest the reasonableness of the fees incurred by Plaintiffs.
In determining the reasonableness of fees, courts look to the factors from
Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim
(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 628, disapproved on other grounds by
Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause, Inc.
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 68 n.5. The factors from
Wollersheim
are (1) the amount of money involved in the litigation; (2) the nature of the litigation and its difficulty and the intricacies and importance of the litigation; (3) the skill required and employed in handling the litigation, the necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the case, and counsels education and experience in the particular type of work involved; (4) the attention given to the case; (5) the success of the attorneys efforts; and (6) the time consumed by the litigation. (
Id.
)
Plaintiffs argued in the initial motion that they met all of these factors. First, Plaintiffs argue that large amounts of money were involved in this litigation because of Ahangs cross-complaint for $7 million and the fact that the original settlement agreement divided the parties assets that were valued in excess of $20 million. Next, for the second factor, Plaintiffs argue that the nature of this case was an emotional case between two ex-spouses and business partners with significant assets at issue, and Ahang had been determined by the Court to have engaged in fraud. For the third factor, Plaintiffs argued that this was a complex case that required an experienced legal team to handle it, and Beattys team were the logical ones to handle it because Beatty had handled the cases that led to the settlement agreement. For the fourth factor, Plaintiffs argued that their counsel had to devote significant attention to this case. For the fifth factor, Plaintiffs argued that their counsel had success throughout the case in prevailing on the anti-SLAPP motion and defeating the attempt to disqualify Beatty, as well as being the prevailing party for the 998 Offer. Finally, for the sixth factor, Plaintiffs argued that this case consumed considerable time and went on for two years and would have gone on much longer if Hamid had not accepted the 998 Offer.
Defendants argue that the attorney fee award should be reduced as the hours billed are excessively unreasonable. A fee request that appears unreasonably inflated is a special circumstance permitting the trial court to reduce the award or deny one altogether. (
Chavez v. City of Los Angeles
(2010) 47 Cal.4th 970, 990-991(citing
Serrano v. Unruh
(1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635).)
This Court previously acknowledged in its tentative ruling the apparent excessive billing for several of Plaintiffs motions: the Anti-SLAPP Motion (160.5 hours), Opposition to Motion to Disqualify (96.5 hours), Demurrer (90.2 hours), Motion for Attorney fees re Anti-SLAPP Motion (49 hours), and Motion to Quash Summons (38.6 hours). This Court also suggested reducing the time spent on those motions by 25%. Defendants argue that they should be reduced by at least 60% because they are beyond excessive.
Other specific tasks that Defendants argue were excessively billed were the 4.0 hours for a half-page notice of continuance; 12.1 hours for a subpoena with 8 document requests; 14.7 hours spent on two identical subpoenas with 6 document requests; 22.3 hours spent on 3 page ex parte application and 2 page declaration to advance a hearing date; 18.3 hours preparing for and drafting a mediation brief; and 10.3 hours on generic case analysis over 48 entries. Defendants argue that the Court should also take into account all of these minor issues in awarding the attorney fees.
Defendants also argue that the at least 209.5 hours spent in relation to the Anti-SLAPP motion was beyond excessive and should be reduced by more than 25%. Defendants cite a case where the Court of Appeal affirmed a reduction in attorney fees and costs related to an Anti-SLAPP motion from $112,288.63 to just $23,000, with the Court of Appeal stating that claiming 200 hours of work & seems excessive and that such a motion should not have been such a monumental undertaking. (
Maughan v. Google Technology, Inc.
(2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1248-1252.) Defendant
Finally, Defendants argue that the Court should consider Defendants expert declaration because it would be admissible because the experts declaration included descriptions of her experience as a fee expert. (See Coleman Decl., ¶¶ 3-10, 14, and 15.) The Court previously sustained Plaintiffs objections to the Coleman Declaration, but in light of Defendants arguments and Colemans supplemental declaration, the Court will consider Colemans declaration.
In light of all of the foregoing, the Court believes that some reduction of the requested fees is necessary. Both the previously indicated major issues and the minor issues that Defendants have brought to the attention of the Court should be reduced.
The amount that the Court will start with is $543,156 in fees actually incurred. The Court previously considered reducing certain fees by 25%. Defendants request an across the board reduction of 60%, which would be $217,262 in fees awarded. Alternatively, Defendants request that the Court do an across the board reduction of 25%, since that percentage is what the Court previously found was appropriate. Based on both the major and minor issues with the billing records, the Court agrees that an across the board reduction is appropriate. The Court also finds that an across the board reduction of 25% is reasonable. That would make the fee award $407,367.
The Court will award this amount. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that their attorneys hourly rates are rates are reasonable. Furthermore, this was a complex class requiring a lot of motion practice, particularly where the Anti-SLAPP motion is concerned. Plaintiffs have provided proof of the amount of time spent on the case through the now-unredacted billing statements.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs motion for attorney fees is granted in the amount of $407,367.00. Costs should be requested in a memorandum of costs.
Moving party to give notice.
Ruling
805 WOOSTER, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS BRETT HYMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL
Jul 26, 2024 |
23STCV27912
Case Number:
23STCV27912
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Dept:
50
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 50
805 WOOSTER, LLC
,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRETT HYMAN
,
et al
.,
Defendants.
Case No.:
23STCV27912
Hearing Date:
July 26, 2024
Hearing Time:
10:00 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL
Carlos A. LLoreda, Jr. of The Law Office of Carlos A. LLoreda, Jr.
(Counsel) moves to be relieved as counsel of record for Defendant
Brett Hyman.
While Counsel has provided sufficient reason for withdrawal, Items 5, 6, and 7 of the proposed order
(Form MC-053)
are blank.
If Counsel provides the Court with a revised order prior to the hearing, the Court will grant the motion.¿
Counsel is ordered to give notice of this order.¿
DATED:
July 26, 2024
________________________________
Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court
Document
TONI HULL VS MANVEL CHAPKINYAN
Dec 20, 2023 |
Valerie Salkin
|
Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |
Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |
23VECV05619
Document
TONI HULL VS MANVEL CHAPKINYAN
Dec 20, 2023 |
Valerie Salkin
|
Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |
Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) (General Jurisdiction) |
23VECV05619
Preview
21SMCV01609 Assigned for all purposes to: Beverly Hills Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Helen Zukin Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 09/30/2021 03:30 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Mohammadi,Deputy Clerk 1 Michael I. Weiss, Esq. [SBN 163814] LAW OFFICES OF LERNER & WEISS, 2 A Professional Corporation 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 1130 3 Woodland Hills, California 91367 4 Telephone: (818) 986-0893 * Facsimile: (818) 385-3576 5 File No.: 18222 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Dean Mckillen 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 8 SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE, UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION 9 10 DEAN MCKILLEN, an individual, ) Case No.: 11 ) Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF 12 ) PROMISSORY NOTE 13 vs. ) ) 14 ZACHARY VELLA, aka ZACH VELLA, an ) individual; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, ) 15 ) 16 Defendants. ) ---------------- ) 17 18 Plaintiff, Dean Mckillen, an individual (hereinafter "MCKILLEN"), alleges as follows: 19 DEFINITIONS AND PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS: 20 1. Plaintiff Mckillen is an individual, with his principal place of business in the City 21 of West Hollywood, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 22 2. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Zachary Vella, aka Zach Vella, is an 23 individual (hereinafter "VELLA"), with his principal place of business in City of West Hollywood, 24 County of Los Angeles, State of California. 25 3. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or 26 otherwise, of the defendants herein designated DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are unknown to 27 plaintiff. Plaintiff will ask leave of the court to amend this Complaint to show their true names and 28 capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of COMPLAINT Page 1 Printed on Recycled Paper 1 these fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein 2 alleged, and that plaintiff's damages were proximately caused by their conduct. 3 4. On infonnation and belief, at all times mentioned herein, each of the defendants 4 were and are the duly authorized agents, co-partners, co-tenants, and co-lessees of each of the said 5 co-defendants, and at all times herein mentioned acted within the course and scope of such agency, 6 partnership, co-tenancy and lease; and each of the acts perfonned by each of the said co-defendants 7 as hereinafter alleged was done with the express or implied consent of the other said co-defendants 8 and for the common benefit of all said co-defendants. 9 5. On information and belief, there exists now and has existed at all times mentioned 10 herein, a unity of interest and ownership by and between VELLA, an individual, and DOES 1 11 through 25, inclusive, and each of them, so that any individuality and separateness between said 12 defendants, if any ever existed, has ceased; that each of said defendants is the alter ego of the other, 13 and that any adherence to the fiction of said defendants would sanction the wrongful conduct 14 complained of herein. 15 6. The obligations and claims sued upon herein were made and entered into and are 16 due and payable in the above mentioned judicial district and county, State of California, and are not 17 subject to the provisions of §1812.10 and 2984.4 of the California Civil Code, and §395(b) of the 18 California Code ofCivil Procedure. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (Breach of Promissory Note) 21 (Against Defendant VELLA and DOES 1-25) 22 7. Paragraphs 1 through 6, inclusive, above are incorporated herein as if fully set 23 forth. 24 8. On June 24, 2021, Defendant VELLA entered into a Promissory Note (the 25 "Promissory Note") with MCKILLEN. A true and correct copy of the Promissory Note is 26 attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 27 9. The Promissory Note called for VELLA to make a payment in the principal sum 28 of Four Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars ($447,162.00), plus COMPLAINT Page2 Printed on Recycled Paper 1 interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum. In the event of a default in the terms of the 2 Promissory Note, the interest would increase to twelve percent (12%) per annum. 3 10. The maturity date for the Promissory Note was July 6, 2021. 4 11. No payment was made by VELLA with reference to the Promissory Note on or 5 before July 6, 2021. 6 12. On September 22, 2021, counsel, on behalf of MCKILLEN sent a Notice of 7 Default on Promissory Note and Demand for Payment, providing VELLA until September 24, 8 2021, to make payment on the outstanding balance of the Promissory Note. A true and correct 9 copy of the Notice of Default on Promissory Note and Demand for Payment is attached hereto as 10 Exhibit 2. 11 13. No payment was made by VELLA with reference to the Promissory Note on or 12 before September 24, 2021. 13 14. Plaintiff has performed all of the terms and conditions of the Promissory Note on 14 its part to be performed. 15 15. Plaintiff has declared Defendant VELLA in default under the terms of the 16 Promissory Note in that Defendant has failed to make the agreed upon payment with reference to 17 the Promissory Note. 18 16. Defendant has failed and refuses and continues to fail and refuses to pay the 19 outstanding balance of the Promissory Note. 20 17. The full balance of the Promissory Note is now due, owing and unpaid from 21 VELLA to MCKILLEN. 22 /// 23 /// 24 Ill 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT Page 3 Printed on Recycled Paper 18. The Promissory Note, in paragraph 6 indicates that in the event of a default, 2 MCKILLEN, as Holder, shall be entitled to recover all fees and costs of collection, including but 3 not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees 4 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 5 WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as 6 follows: 7 1. For damages, in the sum of $447,162.00, together with interest thereon at the rate 8 of 12% per annum from June 24, 2021; 9 2. For costs of suit incurred herein; 10 3. For attorney's fees per contract; and, 11 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 12 Dated: September 28, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF LERNER & WEISS, A Professional Corporation 13 14 15 G . . J£ MICHAEL I. WEISS f2~ ; Attorneys for Plaintiff, DEAN MCKILLEN · 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT Page4 Printed on Recycled Paper EXHIBIT 1 PROMISSORY NOTE This Promissory Note (the "Note") is executed as of June 24, 2021 (the "Effective Date,,) by Zach Vella, an individual (the "Borrower"), for the benefit of Dean McKillen, an individual ("Holder"). 1. Loan. Borrower promises to pay, at such place as Holder may designate, the principal sum of$447,162.00 (the "Principal"), together with interest, as provided below. 2. Interest Rate. Borrower shall pay to Holder simple.interest at the rate of 5% per year, compounded annually. Upon the occurrence of and during the continuation of a default under this Note, the entire Principal balance together with accrued interest thereon shall bear interest at a default rate equal to the lesser of (a) 12.0% per year and (b) the maximum rate allowed by applicable law. 3. Maturity. This Note matures on July 6, 2021. 4. Payment. Borrower promises to make a single, final payment for the entire balance owed to Holder (interest and Principal) upon maturity. 5. Prepayment. The entire Principal balance (or any portion) may be prepaid at any time prior to maturity without penalty. 6. Default and Fees. Should Borrower default in the payment of interest or Principal within five days of when due, all amounts due under this Note shall, at the option of Holder, be immediately due and payable without further demand or notice. In the event of a default, Holder shall be entitled to recover all fees and costs of collection, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees. 7. Waiver. Borrower hereby waives all notices, demands and presentments for payment, all notices of default, nonpayment, intention to accelerate maturity, acceleration of maturity, protest and dishonor, and diligence in tal