Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Dated and Entered: 08/08/2022 Time: 10:00 AM
Judicial Officer: Colleen K Sterne
Deputy Clerk: Danae Chauvin-Couture Dept: SB Dept 5
Deputy Sheriff: David Allcott
Court Reporter: Jana Cooksey Case No: 20CV04285
Jonas Svensson vs iO73 Investments Inc et al
Parties Present:
Nicole Carbonel Attorney for Petitioner (via Zoom)
Naomi Dewey Attorney for Respondent (via Zoom)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion: Attorney Fees; Case Management Conference
The matter proceeded via Zoom conference.
Respondent’s counsel offered oral argument.
The Court adopted the tentative ruling as follows:
RULING: The motion is granted, in the amount of $49,722.00.
Background: Petitioner Jonas Svensson (“Svensson”) is a current shareholder and director of respondent
i073 Investments, Inc. (“i073”), an investment management company that buys, manages, and sells
stocks, bonds, and other securities for investors. Svensson is the former Executive Chairman of i073.
Respondent Tristan Strauss (“Strauss”) is also a shareholder and director of i073. In December 2019,
Svensson was terminated from his position as Executive Chairman of i073, allegedly “for cause” for
breaching his employment contract and engaging in dishonesty relating to his salary. Svensson denies
the allegations and claims that Strauss decided to terminate him in order to deprive him of benefits under
his employment contract and to have his vested shares in i073 subject to a purchase option by the other
shareholders.
On December 18, 2020, Svensson filed the current petition for writ of mandate to compel i073 and
Strauss to permit Svensson to inspect and copy the books and records of the Headwaters Group, a
collection of subsidiary corporations owned and operated by i073. Earlier, Svensson had initiated an
action against Strauss and i073, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 20CV01556, Jonas Svensson,
individually and derivatively on behalf of i073 Investments, Inc. v. i073 Investments, Inc., et al. for breach
of employment agreement, breach of stock award agreement, breach of shareholders’ agreement,
breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory relief (the “Related Case”). On July 27, 2020, the court in the
Related Case entered an order enjoining i073 and Strauss from implementing a forced sale of
Svensson’s shares of the company pending resolution of the case. The Related Case is ongoing.
SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER
On September 3, 2021, the court entered its ruling on Svensson’s request for writ of mandate, ordering
respondents to produce for inspection and copying the two remaining categories of documents of the
Headwaters Group at issue: (1) documents relating to the issue of additional new owners to the
Headwaters Group and (2) a capitalization table and/or materials related to capitalization calculations.
(Ruling, filed 9-3-21.) With respect to the issue of fees and costs, the court stated:
“The court is contemplating an award of fees and costs to Petitioner, but desires to see a declaration
(and supporting materials, if any) concerning the amount and entitlement thereto. Respondent may of
course submit a responding declaration. The court sets the issue of fees and costs for hearing on the
regular civil law and motion calendar on Monday, October 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 5.
Petitioner’s declaration must be filed by October 4, 2021. Any response must be filed by October 15,
2021. No reply will be required.” (Ruling, p. 5:18-6:3.)
On October 4, 2021, counsel for Svensson filed his declaration in support of petitioner’s fee request. On
October 14, 2021, Strauss and i073 filed a notice of appeal of the court’s September 3, 2021 ruling.
Strauss and i073 did not filed a response to Svensson’s fee request.
Prior to the October 25, 2021, hearing, the Court posted its tentative ruling, which proposed to award
attorneys' fees to petition in the amount of $43,602.00. The tentative ruling stated:
In general “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order
appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the
judgment or order.” Code Civ. Proc. §916, subd. (a). The taking or “perfecting” of an appeal by filing a
notice of appeal effectively deprives the trial court of jurisdiction of the cause. Vosburg v. Vosburg (1902)
137 Cal. 493, 496. However, the trial court may proceed on collateral matters not affected by the order or
judgment appealed from, including matters related to attorney’s fees. Sherry H. v. Thomas B. (1988) 203
Cal.App.3d 1500, 1502-1503 (defendant’s appeal from judgment in paternity action did not deprive trial
court of jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees to plaintiff pending the outcome of the appeal).
Here, Svensson’s request for attorney’s fees is merely collateral to his petition for writ of mandate and
because the request has no bearing on respondents’ appeal, the court will proceed with the request.
Svensson’s writ petition was based on his right as a shareholder and director of i073 to inspect and copy
the books, records, and documents of i073 and its related companies pursuant to Corporations
Code Section 1601. With respect to fees, Corporations Code Section 1604 provides:
SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER
“In any action or proceeding under . . . Section 1601, if the court finds the failure of the corporation to
comply with a proper demand thereunder was without justification, the court may award an amount
sufficient to reimburse the shareholder or holder of a voting trust certificate for the reasonable expenses
incurred by such holder, including attorneys’ fees, in connection with such action or proceeding.”
The court finds that Svensson is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Section 1604. As the court
noted in its ruling on September 3, 2021, a shareholder is entitled to information reasonably related to his
or her interests as a shareholder, specifically including the financial condition of the corporation, the
propriety of dividends or the value of stock, and to aid in litigation with the corporation or its officers or
shareholders. (Ruling, p. 4:3-10.) Yet, respondents repeatedly refused Svensson’s request as a
shareholder to be able to view and copy this information, forcing him to file his petition for writ of
mandate. (Condren Dec., ¶ 8.) There was no legal justification for respondents’ refusal to make the
information available.
As detailed in the declaration of Alan D. Condren, petitioner has incurred legal fees in connection with his
petition for writ of mandate in the amount of $43,602.00, through October 4, 2021. (Condren Dec., ¶¶ 4,
5, 6, Ex. 1.) While Mr. Condren is an experienced litigator, having practiced law for over 28 years, he had
never dealt with an issue involving a shareholder’s or director’s rights to corporate information and when
it became clear that respondents would do everything in their power to deny Svensson access to
information to which he was entitled, Mr. Condren had to educate himself about Svensson’s rights in his
capacity as a shareholder and director of i073. (Condren Dec., ¶ 10.) Svensson’s petition for writ of
mandate was also a first for Mr. Condren, so it took time to figure out whether a writ petition was the
proper mechanism for enforcing Svensson’s rights and how a writ petition is prepared. (Condren Dec., ¶
13.) Once Mr. Condren had filed the petition, respondents filed a demurrer, which necessitated a
response. (Condren Dec., ¶ 14.)
The court will grant Svensson’s request for attorney’s fees. This was not a simple writ petition. The
petition was also vigorously opposed by respondents. Svensson is awarded fees in the amount of
$43,602.00.
Counsel appeared via Zoom on October 25, at which time Respondents argued that their filing of a
Notice of Appeal deprived the court of jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees, and that an award of fees
based upon a declaration procedure was improper, and a noticed motion was required. The Court then
took the matter under submission.
On October 26, 2021, petitioner then filed the current motion seeking attorneys' fees of $49,722.00, and
setting the hearing for December 6, 2021. The additional $6,120.00 in fees sought by the motion related
to the fees incurred in connection with the attempt to recover fees and to prepare the motion.
SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER
On November 5, 2021, and apparently without knowledge that the fee motion had been filed following
the October 25 hearing, the Court issued its ruling on the fee issue which it had taken under submission
on October 25, denying the request pending resolution of the appeal.
Likely because of that ruling, respondents did not file opposition to the fee motion. In its Minute Order
from the December 6 hearing, the Court clarified that its November 5 ruling addressed the fee issue as it
stood following argument relating to the non-motion process. The Minute Order noted further "The instant
motion must be considered under California Rules of Court, rules 3.1702(a) and (b), which authorize
stipulation for delayed filing of a fee motion, but do not authorize the court to postpone when such a
motion maybe [sic] heard until after the appeal. The motion was timely filed. No opposition has been
filed. ¶ The court acknowledges that the wording of its November 5 ruling may not have been entirely
clear. It was not the court's intention to foreclose a subsequent motion such as that which has been filed
for hearing on December 6. The court notes the lack of opposition addressing the current fee motion, and
is concerned that counsel may think the matter is off calendar. It is not. If no opposition is intended, the
court will rule accordingly. If written opposition to the current motion is intended, the court will undertake
a brief continuance to allow such to be filed." The Court then continued the hearing, which was continued
further to May 23, 2022.
On December 17, 2021, attorney Condren substituted out as petitioner's attorney of record, and attorney
Ram substituted in.
Respondents filed opposition on May 11, 2022. Respondents again argue that the fee motion is
premature because of their pending appeal in this action, and further contend that the time expended by
attorney Condren in this proceeding was not reasonable.
In reply, petitioner argues that the fees incurred were reasonable given that respondents' actions directly
contributed to the fees they now contend are unwarranted by prolonging the litigation, and pursuing
contradictory positions, and are wholly supported by the Condren declarations previously submitted. It
notes that although the actual fees incurred exceed those which Condren estimated would be required to
prepare reply and for the hearing, petitioners is seeking only the amount set forth in the motion.
Petitioner further asserts that the pending appeal does not impact the motion for fees.
There was confusion on the part of the Court leading up to the scheduled May 23, 2022 hearing on this
motion. Apparently, a tentative ruling was originally posted continuing the hearing to June 20, 2022, after
which that tentative ruling was removed and replaced with a ruling granting the motion. Counsel were not
aware of the updated tentative ruling, and neither appeared for the May 23 hearing, under the belief that
it had been continued to June 20. However, this Court adopted the tentative as its ruling on the motion
on May 23. Counsel appeared on June 20, and explained what had occurred. As a result, the court
SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER
vacated the ruling and minute order dated May 23, 2022, and scheduled a hearing on the motion for
August 8, 2022.
Nothing further was been filed by either party related to the fee motion since before the original May 23
hearing date.
The Court notes that it appears that oral argument for the appeal of this matter is currently scheduled for
Wednesday, August 10, 2022.
ANALYSIS: The motion is granted, in the total amount of $49,722.00.
As noted above, this Court twice previously prepared a tentative ruling finding that Svensson was entitled
to an award of attorney's fees under Corporations Code section 1604, finding that there was no legal
justification for respondents' refusal to make available the information to which Svensson was entitled as
a shareholder and as a director. The Court hereby reaffirms that conclusion. Consequently, petitioner is
entitled to fees in this proceeding.
1. Impact of respondents' appeal
In spite of the fact that authorities to the contrary have been repeatedly cited to them, Respondents
continue to argue and assert that the fact that they have filed a Notice of Appeal renders the fee motion
premature, subject to appellate stay, and deprives the trial court of the jurisdiction to rule on it.
Respondents cite Chapala Management Corporation v. Stanton (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1542, for
its statement that the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or
order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of
the judgment or order, and that the purpose of the automatic stay rule is to protect the appellate court's
jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. It prevents the trial court from
rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings
that may affect it. (Id.) Respondents then conclude that an award of attorneys' fees prior to a decision by
the Appellate court fails to preserve the status quo, since it is unknown who the prevailing party will be.
SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER
Respondents' argument is contrary to law. Indeed, it has long been well-settled that post-judgment
awards of attorneys fees as costs are collateral matters which do not affect the order from which an
appeal is taken, and a motion for attorneys' fees is not stayed by the filing of an appeal. (See Domestic
Linen Supply Co., Inc. v. L J T Flowers, Inc. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 180, 187.)
As noted by petitioner in his reply, the recent case of Korchemny v. Piterman (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th
1032, 1052, found the argument now made by respondents to be "frivolous." Specifically,
the Korchemny court stated:
"Korchemny makes two preliminary arguments against the fee award, one procedural, one evidentiary,
both of which arguments are frivolous. Korchemny first asserts, in an argument of less than one page,
that the fee motion was “premature” in light of the appeal he had filed, an argument that cites nothing in
support. Respondents’ brief does cite authority, most significantly Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th
365, 368–369, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 723 superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lee v. Wells
Fargo Bank (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1197, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 726, where, rejecting the identical
argument Korchemny makes here, the court held as follows: 'Contrary to Bankes's argument, the filing of
a notice of appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to award attorney fees and costs post
trial.... [I]t has been held that a motion for attorney fees is not premature despite the filing of a notice of
appeal. [Citations.] [¶] In any event, an award of attorney fees as costs is a collateral matter which is
embraced in the action but is not affected by the order from which an appeal is taken. (Code Civ. Proc., §
916, subd. (a); In re Marriage of Sherman (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1140, 208 Cal.Rptr. 832.)
Consequently, filing a notice of appeal does not stay any proceedings to determine the matter of costs
and does not prevent the trial court from determining a proper award of attorney fees claimed as costs.'"
Attorneys' fees authorized by statute—such as the fees sought herein under the authority of
Corporations Code section 1604—are properly awarded as costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd.
(a)(10)(B).)
Consequently, it is clear the current motion for fees is a collateral matter which does not in any way affect
the order from which the appeal has been taken. No stay exists to prevent the court from addressing the
motion.
2. Amount of fees.
In opposing the amount of fees sought by petitioners' motion, respondents contend that attorney
Condren spent far more time on the "simple" mandate proceeding than was warranted for a business
litigator of considerable experience. Respondents contend further that the amount of time was made
SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER
even more unreasonable by the fact that, by the time the petition came on for hearing, petitioner already
had all of the documents, and the petition was unnecessary.
Interestingly, the latter point is contradicted by the ruling of this Court on the petition, which did not find
that respondents had provided everything they were obligated by law to provide. If it had, there would
have been no reason for the Court to grant the petition and issue the writ. Further, as pointed out by
petitioner's reply papers, the amount of attorneys' fees requested directly results from the aggressive
litigation strategy utilized by respondents, and the contradictory positions repeatedly taken by
respondents in the course of the two related proceedings. Indeed, the petition was vigorously opposed
by respondents, who not only opposed the petition, but also demurred to it.
The Court evaluated the fees claimed by petitioner prior to the October 2021 hearing, and found them
reasonable at that time. The Court has further evaluated the claimed fees, and under the totality of the
circumstances which were present in this proceeding, including the objections and arguments against
providing the requested information that were vigorously asserted by respondents, and once again finds
that they are reasonable. The Court has further evaluated the amount requested for preparation of reply
papers and appearance at the hearing. The Court understands, given that new counsel has substituted
in as attorney of record for petitioner, that more fees than the amount requested have been incurred for
preparation of the reply and anticipated time for appearance at the hearing, but that petitioner is not
seeking that greater amount, and is only requesting the amount originally requested by attorney Condren
for those tasks. The Court also finds these fees to have been reasonably incurred.
Consequently, the Court will grant the motion for fees pursuant to Corporations Code section 1604 and
will award fees to petitioner in the total amount of $49,722.00.
DARREL E. PARKER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER Minutes Prepared by:
Danae Chauvin-Couture , Deputy
SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA Dated and Entered: 08/08/2022 Time: 10:00 AM Judicial Officer: Colleen K Sterne Deputy Clerk: Danae Chauvin-Couture Dept: SB Dept 5 Deputy Sheriff: David Allcott Court Reporter: Jana Cooksey Case No: 20CV04285 Jonas Svensson vs iO73 Investments Inc et al Parties Present: Nicole Carbonel Attorney for Petitioner (via Zoom) Naomi Dewey Attorney for Respondent (via Zoom) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion: Attorney Fees; Case Management Conference The matter proceeded via Zoom conference. Respondent’s counsel offered oral argument. The Court adopted the tentative ruling as follows: RULING: The motion is granted, in the amount of $49,722.00. Background: Petitioner Jonas Svensson (“Svensson”) is a current shareholder and director of respondent i073 Investments, Inc. (“i073”), an investment management company that buys, manages, and sells stocks, bonds, and other securities for investors. Svensson is the former Executive Chairman of i073. Respondent Tristan Strauss (“Strauss”) is also a shareholder and director of i073. In December 2019, Svensson was terminated from his position as Executive Chairman of i073, allegedly “for cause” for breaching his employment contract and engaging in dishonesty relating to his salary. Svensson denies the allegations and claims that Strauss decided to terminate him in order to deprive him of benefits under his employment contract and to have his vested shares in i073 subject to a purchase option by the other shareholders. On December 18, 2020, Svensson filed the current petition for writ of mandate to compel i073 and Strauss to permit Svensson to inspect and copy the books and records of the Headwaters Group, a collection of subsidiary corporations owned and operated by i073. Earlier, Svensson had initiated an action against Strauss and i073, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 20CV01556, Jonas Svensson, individually and derivatively on behalf of i073 Investments, Inc. v. i073 Investments, Inc., et al. for breach of employment agreement, breach of stock award agreement, breach of shareholders’ agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory relief (the “Related Case”). On July 27, 2020, the court in the Related Case entered an order enjoining i073 and Strauss from implementing a forced sale of Svensson’s shares of the company pending resolution of the case. The Related Case is ongoing. SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER On September 3, 2021, the court entered its ruling on Svensson’s request for writ of mandate, ordering respondents to produce for inspection and copying the two remaining categories of documents of the Headwaters Group at issue: (1) documents relating to the issue of additional new owners to the Headwaters Group and (2) a capitalization table and/or materials related to capitalization calculations. (Ruling, filed 9-3-21.) With respect to the issue of fees and costs, the court stated: “The court is contemplating an award of fees and costs to Petitioner, but desires to see a declaration (and supporting materials, if any) concerning the amount and entitlement thereto. Respondent may of course submit a responding declaration. The court sets the issue of fees and costs for hearing on the regular civil law and motion calendar on Monday, October 25, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 5. Petitioner’s declaration must be filed by October 4, 2021. Any response must be filed by October 15, 2021. No reply will be required.” (Ruling, p. 5:18-6:3.) On October 4, 2021, counsel for Svensson filed his declaration in support of petitioner’s fee request. On October 14, 2021, Strauss and i073 filed a notice of appeal of the court’s September 3, 2021 ruling. Strauss and i073 did not filed a response to Svensson’s fee request. Prior to the October 25, 2021, hearing, the Court posted its tentative ruling, which proposed to award attorneys' fees to petition in the amount of $43,602.00. The tentative ruling stated: In general “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order.” Code Civ. Proc. §916, subd. (a). The taking or “perfecting” of an appeal by filing a notice of appeal effectively deprives the trial court of jurisdiction of the cause. Vosburg v. Vosburg (1902) 137 Cal. 493, 496. However, the trial court may proceed on collateral matters not affected by the order or judgment appealed from, including matters related to attorney’s fees. Sherry H. v. Thomas B. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1500, 1502-1503 (defendant’s appeal from judgment in paternity action did not deprive trial court of jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees to plaintiff pending the outcome of the appeal). Here, Svensson’s request for attorney’s fees is merely collateral to his petition for writ of mandate and because the request has no bearing on respondents’ appeal, the court will proceed with the request. Svensson’s writ petition was based on his right as a shareholder and director of i073 to inspect and copy the books, records, and documents of i073 and its related companies pursuant to Corporations Code Section 1601. With respect to fees, Corporations Code Section 1604 provides: SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER “In any action or proceeding under . . . Section 1601, if the court finds the failure of the corporation to comply with a proper demand thereunder was without justification, the court may award an amount sufficient to reimburse the shareholder or holder of a voting trust certificate for the reasonable expenses incurred by such holder, including attorneys’ fees, in connection with such action or proceeding.” The court finds that Svensson is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Section 1604. As the court noted in its ruling on September 3, 2021, a shareholder is entitled to information reasonably related to his or her interests as a shareholder, specifically including the financial condition of the corporation, the propriety of dividends or the value of stock, and to aid in litigation with the corporation or its officers or shareholders. (Ruling, p. 4:3-10.) Yet, respondents repeatedly refused Svensson’s request as a shareholder to be able to view and copy this information, forcing him to file his petition for writ of mandate. (Condren Dec., ¶ 8.) There was no legal justification for respondents’ refusal to make the information available. As detailed in the declaration of Alan D. Condren, petitioner has incurred legal fees in connection with his petition for writ of mandate in the amount of $43,602.00, through October 4, 2021. (Condren Dec., ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, Ex. 1.) While Mr. Condren is an experienced litigator, having practiced law for over 28 years, he had never dealt with an issue involving a shareholder’s or director’s rights to corporate information and when it became clear that respondents would do everything in their power to deny Svensson access to information to which he was entitled, Mr. Condren had to educate himself about Svensson’s rights in his capacity as a shareholder and director of i073. (Condren Dec., ¶ 10.) Svensson’s petition for writ of mandate was also a first for Mr. Condren, so it took time to figure out whether a writ petition was the proper mechanism for enforcing Svensson’s rights and how a writ petition is prepared. (Condren Dec., ¶ 13.) Once Mr. Condren had filed the petition, respondents filed a demurrer, which necessitated a response. (Condren Dec., ¶ 14.) The court will grant Svensson’s request for attorney’s fees. This was not a simple writ petition. The petition was also vigorously opposed by respondents. Svensson is awarded fees in the amount of $43,602.00. Counsel appeared via Zoom on October 25, at which time Respondents argued that their filing of a Notice of Appeal deprived the court of jurisdiction to award attorneys' fees, and that an award of fees based upon a declaration procedure was improper, and a noticed motion was required. The Court then took the matter under submission. On October 26, 2021, petitioner then filed the current motion seeking attorneys' fees of $49,722.00, and setting the hearing for December 6, 2021. The additional $6,120.00 in fees sought by the motion related to the fees incurred in connection with the attempt to recover fees and to prepare the motion. SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER On November 5, 2021, and apparently without knowledge that the fee motion had been filed following the October 25 hearing, the Court issued its ruling on the fee issue which it had taken under submission on October 25, denying the request pending resolution of the appeal. Likely because of that ruling, respondents did not file opposition to the fee motion. In its Minute Order from the December 6 hearing, the Court clarified that its November 5 ruling addressed the fee issue as it stood following argument relating to the non-motion process. The Minute Order noted further "The instant motion must be considered under California Rules of Court, rules 3.1702(a) and (b), which authorize stipulation for delayed filing of a fee motion, but do not authorize the court to postpone when such a motion maybe [sic] heard until after the appeal. The motion was timely filed. No opposition has been filed. ¶ The court acknowledges that the wording of its November 5 ruling may not have been entirely clear. It was not the court's intention to foreclose a subsequent motion such as that which has been filed for hearing on December 6. The court notes the lack of opposition addressing the current fee motion, and is concerned that counsel may think the matter is off calendar. It is not. If no opposition is intended, the court will rule accordingly. If written opposition to the current motion is intended, the court will undertake a brief continuance to allow such to be filed." The Court then continued the hearing, which was continued further to May 23, 2022. On December 17, 2021, attorney Condren substituted out as petitioner's attorney of record, and attorney Ram substituted in. Respondents filed opposition on May 11, 2022. Respondents again argue that the fee motion is premature because of their pending appeal in this action, and further contend that the time expended by attorney Condren in this proceeding was not reasonable. In reply, petitioner argues that the fees incurred were reasonable given that respondents' actions directly contributed to the fees they now contend are unwarranted by prolonging the litigation, and pursuing contradictory positions, and are wholly supported by the Condren declarations previously submitted. It notes that although the actual fees incurred exceed those which Condren estimated would be required to prepare reply and for the hearing, petitioners is seeking only the amount set forth in the motion. Petitioner further asserts that the pending appeal does not impact the motion for fees. There was confusion on the part of the Court leading up to the scheduled May 23, 2022 hearing on this motion. Apparently, a tentative ruling was originally posted continuing the hearing to June 20, 2022, after which that tentative ruling was removed and replaced with a ruling granting the motion. Counsel were not aware of the updated tentative ruling, and neither appeared for the May 23 hearing, under the belief that it had been continued to June 20. However, this Court adopted the tentative as its ruling on the motion on May 23. Counsel appeared on June 20, and explained what had occurred. As a result, the court SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER vacated the ruling and minute order dated May 23, 2022, and scheduled a hearing on the motion for August 8, 2022. Nothing further was been filed by either party related to the fee motion since before the original May 23 hearing date. The Court notes that it appears that oral argument for the appeal of this matter is currently scheduled for Wednesday, August 10, 2022. ANALYSIS: The motion is granted, in the total amount of $49,722.00. As noted above, this Court twice previously prepared a tentative ruling finding that Svensson was entitled to an award of attorney's fees under Corporations Code section 1604, finding that there was no legal justification for respondents' refusal to make available the information to which Svensson was entitled as a shareholder and as a director. The Court hereby reaffirms that conclusion. Consequently, petitioner is entitled to fees in this proceeding. 1. Impact of respondents' appeal In spite of the fact that authorities to the contrary have been repeatedly cited to them, Respondents continue to argue and assert that the fact that they have filed a Notice of Appeal renders the fee motion premature, subject to appellate stay, and deprives the trial court of the jurisdiction to rule on it. Respondents cite Chapala Management Corporation v. Stanton (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1542, for its statement that the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, and that the purpose of the automatic stay rule is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. It prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it. (Id.) Respondents then conclude that an award of attorneys' fees prior to a decision by the Appellate court fails to preserve the status quo, since it is unknown who the prevailing party will be. SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER Respondents' argument is contrary to law. Indeed, it has long been well-settled that post-judgment awards of attorneys fees as costs are collateral matters which do not affect the order from which an appeal is taken, and a motion for attorneys' fees is not stayed by the filing of an appeal. (See Domestic Linen Supply Co., Inc. v. L J T Flowers, Inc. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 180, 187.) As noted by petitioner in his reply, the recent case of Korchemny v. Piterman (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1052, found the argument now made by respondents to be "frivolous." Specifically, the Korchemny court stated: "Korchemny makes two preliminary arguments against the fee award, one procedural, one evidentiary, both of which arguments are frivolous. Korchemny first asserts, in an argument of less than one page, that the fee motion was “premature” in light of the appeal he had filed, an argument that cites nothing in support. Respondents’ brief does cite authority, most significantly Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 368–369, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 723 superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lee v. Wells Fargo Bank (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1197, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 726, where, rejecting the identical argument Korchemny makes here, the court held as follows: 'Contrary to Bankes's argument, the filing of a notice of appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to award attorney fees and costs post trial.... [I]t has been held that a motion for attorney fees is not premature despite the filing of a notice of appeal. [Citations.] [¶] In any event, an award of attorney fees as costs is a collateral matter which is embraced in the action but is not affected by the order from which an appeal is taken. (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a); In re Marriage of Sherman (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1140, 208 Cal.Rptr. 832.) Consequently, filing a notice of appeal does not stay any proceedings to determine the matter of costs and does not prevent the trial court from determining a proper award of attorney fees claimed as costs.'" Attorneys' fees authorized by statute—such as the fees sought herein under the authority of Corporations Code section 1604—are properly awarded as costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(B).) Consequently, it is clear the current motion for fees is a collateral matter which does not in any way affect the order from which the appeal has been taken. No stay exists to prevent the court from addressing the motion. 2. Amount of fees. In opposing the amount of fees sought by petitioners' motion, respondents contend that attorney Condren spent far more time on the "simple" mandate proceeding than was warranted for a business litigator of considerable experience. Respondents contend further that the amount of time was made SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER even more unreasonable by the fact that, by the time the petition came on for hearing, petitioner already had all of the documents, and the petition was unnecessary. Interestingly, the latter point is contradicted by the ruling of this Court on the petition, which did not find that respondents had provided everything they were obligated by law to provide. If it had, there would have been no reason for the Court to grant the petition and issue the writ. Further, as pointed out by petitioner's reply papers, the amount of attorneys' fees requested directly results from the aggressive litigation strategy utilized by respondents, and the contradictory positions repeatedly taken by respondents in the course of the two related proceedings. Indeed, the petition was vigorously opposed by respondents, who not only opposed the petition, but also demurred to it. The Court evaluated the fees claimed by petitioner prior to the October 2021 hearing, and found them reasonable at that time. The Court has further evaluated the claimed fees, and under the totality of the circumstances which were present in this proceeding, including the objections and arguments against providing the requested information that were vigorously asserted by respondents, and once again finds that they are reasonable. The Court has further evaluated the amount requested for preparation of reply papers and appearance at the hearing. The Court understands, given that new counsel has substituted in as attorney of record for petitioner, that more fees than the amount requested have been incurred for preparation of the reply and anticipated time for appearance at the hearing, but that petitioner is not seeking that greater amount, and is only requesting the amount originally requested by attorney Condren for those tasks. The Court also finds these fees to have been reasonably incurred. Consequently, the Court will grant the motion for fees pursuant to Corporations Code section 1604 and will award fees to petitioner in the total amount of $49,722.00. DARREL E. PARKER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER Minutes Prepared by: Danae Chauvin-Couture , Deputy SC-2411 (Revised July 1, 2013) MINUTE ORDER