Preview
1 EDWARD J. RODZEWICH, ESQ. – State Bar No. 159466
STRATMAN, SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGO
2 Mailing Address ELECTRONICALLY
P.O. Box 258829
3 Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829 F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
Physical Address County of San Francisco
4 505 14th Street, Suite 400
Oakland, CA 94612-1913 12/18/2020
5 Clerk of the Court
Phone: (510) 457-3440 BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
Email: edward.rodzewich@farmersinsurance.com Deputy Clerk
6
Attorney for Defendants TREVOR DENG AND MAY DENG
7
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
11
ANGELIQUE ROCHELLE, individually and as Case No.: CGC-16-555761
12 Guardian ad litem of ELLA LAWTON and UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
LEONA PASLAY and BAZ ROCHELLE,
13 individually, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
14 Plaintiffs,
Date: January 19, 2021
15 vs. Time: 9:30am
Dept: 302
16 TREVOR DENG, MAY DENG, YU TAO TAN
and DOES 1 to 10, ,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MOTION IS BEING FILED IN DEPARTMENT 302
21 BECAUSE THIS IS A POST-APPEAL MOTION AND JUDGE BOLANOS IS NO LONGER IN
22 DEPARTMENT 504)
23 I. Introduction and Facts:
24 The parties completed a jury trial in Department 504. The jury verdict was returned on
25 December 4, 2017. In response to the questions submitted to the jury in the Special Verdict, the jury
26 found for the defense on all causes of action. A judgment form was signed by the Court and filed on
27 December 12, 2017. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich, paragraph 5)
28
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES -1
1 On April 24, 2018, the trial court granted the motion of the defendants for an award of attorneys’
2 fees and costs. An amended judgment was ordered and the amount of judgment in favor of the
3 defendants was $148,375.12. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich, paragraph 6)
4 The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2018. This matter was briefed in the Appellate
5 Courts and oral arguments were heard on July 9, 2020. The appeal was denied and the judgment was
6 affirmed in an unpublished opinion dated July 17, 2020. After a request for publication was denied, the
7 appellate court remitted this matter on November 16, 2020. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich,
8 paragraph 7)
9 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2), the unpublished appellate opinion
10 awarded defendant/respondent Deng costs on appeal. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich, paragraph
11 8)
12 This is a motion for additional costs and fees as a result of the appeal. The defendants are now
13 seeking an additional $47,677.50 in attorneys’ fees and an additional $400 in costs (filing fees).
14 (Declaration of Robert D. Feighner, paragraphs 6 and 7)
15 The defendants are seeking that the judgment be amended to include these additional appellate
16 costs. The new judgment amount would be $148,375.12 plus $47,677.50 plus $400, or $196,452.62 in
17 total.
18 II. Claim for Attorneys’ Fees:
19 This motion for attorneys’ fees that is being made by defendants/respondents Trevor Deng and
20 May Deng against Angelique Rochelle. Ms. Rochelle and her attorneys aggressively sued these two
21 primary defendants under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, which has prevailing party provision.
22 Furthermore, Ms. Rochelle and her attorneys sued these two primary defendants under the terms of a
23 written lease, which has prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision. Finally, Ms. Rochelle and her
24 attorneys sued these two primary defendants after rejecting a valid offer under California Code of Civil
25 procedure, which also had a prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision.
26 These issues were already decided in post-trial motions and the court ordered that these
27 defendants were entitled to attorneys’ fees on April 24, 2018. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich,
28 paragraph 6) At that time, it was noted that term 39 of the written lease between these parties stated that
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES -2
1 the prevailing party will be entitled to award of attorneys’ fees. It was also argued that ten causes of
2 action were based on an alleged failure of the defendants to comply with the San Francisco Rent
3 Ordinance.
4 Section 37.9 (f) of the San Francisco Administrative Code states: ” The prevailing party shall be
5 entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to order of the court.”
6 III. Appellate Fees and Costs
7 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2), the unpublished appellate opinion
8 awarded defendants/respondents Deng costs on appeal. California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2),
9 permits the claim of costs by the prevailing party, if made within 40 days after remitter.
10 The defendants have filed a cost memorandum and this motion on time. The declaration of
11 Robert Feighner, Esq. details the costs and fees being claimed.
12 IV. Request
13 The defendants are seeking that the judgment be amended to include these additional appellate
14 costs. The new judgment amount would be $148,375.12 plus $47,677.50 plus $400, or $196,452.62 in
15 total.
16 STRATMAN, SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-
DATED: December 16, 2020
ABREGO
17
18
BY:
19
20 EDWARD J. RODZEWICH, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendants,
21 TREVOR DENG AND MAY DENG
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES -3
Preview
1 EDWARD J. RODZEWICH, ESQ. – State Bar No. 159466 STRATMAN, SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS-ABREGO 2 Mailing Address ELECTRONICALLY P.O. Box 258829 3 Oklahoma City, OK 73125-8829 F I L E D Superior Court of California, Physical Address County of San Francisco 4 505 14th Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612-1913 12/18/2020 5 Clerk of the Court Phone: (510) 457-3440 BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Email: edward.rodzewich@farmersinsurance.com Deputy Clerk 6 Attorney for Defendants TREVOR DENG AND MAY DENG 7 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 11 ANGELIQUE ROCHELLE, individually and as Case No.: CGC-16-555761 12 Guardian ad litem of ELLA LAWTON and UNLIMITED JURISDICTION LEONA PASLAY and BAZ ROCHELLE, 13 individually, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES 14 Plaintiffs, Date: January 19, 2021 15 vs. Time: 9:30am Dept: 302 16 TREVOR DENG, MAY DENG, YU TAO TAN and DOES 1 to 10, , 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MOTION IS BEING FILED IN DEPARTMENT 302 21 BECAUSE THIS IS A POST-APPEAL MOTION AND JUDGE BOLANOS IS NO LONGER IN 22 DEPARTMENT 504) 23 I. Introduction and Facts: 24 The parties completed a jury trial in Department 504. The jury verdict was returned on 25 December 4, 2017. In response to the questions submitted to the jury in the Special Verdict, the jury 26 found for the defense on all causes of action. A judgment form was signed by the Court and filed on 27 December 12, 2017. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich, paragraph 5) 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES -1 1 On April 24, 2018, the trial court granted the motion of the defendants for an award of attorneys’ 2 fees and costs. An amended judgment was ordered and the amount of judgment in favor of the 3 defendants was $148,375.12. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich, paragraph 6) 4 The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2018. This matter was briefed in the Appellate 5 Courts and oral arguments were heard on July 9, 2020. The appeal was denied and the judgment was 6 affirmed in an unpublished opinion dated July 17, 2020. After a request for publication was denied, the 7 appellate court remitted this matter on November 16, 2020. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich, 8 paragraph 7) 9 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2), the unpublished appellate opinion 10 awarded defendant/respondent Deng costs on appeal. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich, paragraph 11 8) 12 This is a motion for additional costs and fees as a result of the appeal. The defendants are now 13 seeking an additional $47,677.50 in attorneys’ fees and an additional $400 in costs (filing fees). 14 (Declaration of Robert D. Feighner, paragraphs 6 and 7) 15 The defendants are seeking that the judgment be amended to include these additional appellate 16 costs. The new judgment amount would be $148,375.12 plus $47,677.50 plus $400, or $196,452.62 in 17 total. 18 II. Claim for Attorneys’ Fees: 19 This motion for attorneys’ fees that is being made by defendants/respondents Trevor Deng and 20 May Deng against Angelique Rochelle. Ms. Rochelle and her attorneys aggressively sued these two 21 primary defendants under the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, which has prevailing party provision. 22 Furthermore, Ms. Rochelle and her attorneys sued these two primary defendants under the terms of a 23 written lease, which has prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision. Finally, Ms. Rochelle and her 24 attorneys sued these two primary defendants after rejecting a valid offer under California Code of Civil 25 procedure, which also had a prevailing party attorneys’ fees provision. 26 These issues were already decided in post-trial motions and the court ordered that these 27 defendants were entitled to attorneys’ fees on April 24, 2018. (Declaration of Edward J. Rodzewich, 28 paragraph 6) At that time, it was noted that term 39 of the written lease between these parties stated that POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES -2 1 the prevailing party will be entitled to award of attorneys’ fees. It was also argued that ten causes of 2 action were based on an alleged failure of the defendants to comply with the San Francisco Rent 3 Ordinance. 4 Section 37.9 (f) of the San Francisco Administrative Code states: ” The prevailing party shall be 5 entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to order of the court.” 6 III. Appellate Fees and Costs 7 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2), the unpublished appellate opinion 8 awarded defendants/respondents Deng costs on appeal. California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2), 9 permits the claim of costs by the prevailing party, if made within 40 days after remitter. 10 The defendants have filed a cost memorandum and this motion on time. The declaration of 11 Robert Feighner, Esq. details the costs and fees being claimed. 12 IV. Request 13 The defendants are seeking that the judgment be amended to include these additional appellate 14 costs. The new judgment amount would be $148,375.12 plus $47,677.50 plus $400, or $196,452.62 in 15 total. 16 STRATMAN, SCHWARTZ & WILLIAMS- DATED: December 16, 2020 ABREGO 17 18 BY: 19 20 EDWARD J. RODZEWICH, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants, 21 TREVOR DENG AND MAY DENG 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES -3