Document for 3800 WEST SIXTH STREET LLC VS EUN CHU LEE ET AL

• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                4

                              RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER

 January 18, 2019                                                 Superior ¢ ‘Ourt of D
                                                                      Ounty of Los 4 California
                                                                                       ngel
 3800 West Sixth Street, LLC v. Lee                                    JAN 18 2019
 Case No. BC716089
 Department 54, Judge Ernest M. Hiroshige                                        ulive Officer/
                                                                                                cy Terk
 Re: (1) Motion for New Trial                                                                 Deputy
 (2) Motion for New and Different Judgment
 (3) Motion for Attorney's Fees
 [Original Hearing Date: January 9, 2019]

 RULING:    PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IS DENIED.

 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENTER NEW AND DIFFERENT JUDGMENT
                                                                                     IS DENIED.
THE COURT CLARIFIES THE JUDGMENT AS FOLLOWS: DEFENDANTS
                                                         ’
OBLIGATION IN THE LEASE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES IS UNENFORCEABLE.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS GRANTED IN THE REDUC
                                                               ED
AMOUNT OF $48,750.00.

        CLERK TO NOTICE COUNSEL OF RECORD BY EMAIL.

        On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff 3800 West Sixth Street, Inc.'s (‘Plaintiff’) motions for
new trial and new and different judgment, and Defendant 's’ Eun Chu Lee, Young Soon
Lee and Smiling Tree, Inc.’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion for attorney’s fees
                                                                                       came for
hearing before the Court. The Court tentatively denied Plaintiff's motions and granted
Defendants’ motion in the reduced amount of $63,750.00. After further consideration
                                                                                            of
the moving papers, oppositions, and replies, and the arguments made at hearing,
                                                                                        the
Court is unpersuaded to modify its tentative ruling and to motions for new trial and
                                                                                         new
and different judgment. The Court does, however, modify its ruling as to Defendants’
motion for attorney's fees.

A. Plaintiffs Motions for New Trial and New and Different Judgment

       1. Exhibits Stricken

       As detailed in the Court's tentative ruling, the Court struck Defendants’ oppositi
                                                                                          ons,
and Plaintiff's replies to Plaintiff's motions for new trial and new and different judgmen
                                                                                           t.
The Court did so as the oppositions and replies were untimely per CCP §§ 659a and
668a. The oppositions were 13 days late and the replies were 9 days late.

        CCP §§ 659a and 663a allow the Court to extend the deadlines for filing supporting
Papers by up to 10 days. As Defendants’ oppositions were 13 days late, the Court has no
discretion to consider them. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should consider their late