On August 29, 2016 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Nahas George,
and
Mercedes-Benz Usa Llc,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
e e FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Superior Court of California
2018
JUL'6 1
County of Los Angeles ivy Uliicer/Clerk
eee
Sherri R. Carier, &
Bi , Deputy
Department 51 Richard Duarte
GEORGE NAHAS, Case No.: BC631893
Plaintiffs, Hearing Date: 7/16/18
Vv. Trial Date: None set
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., RULING RE:
Defendants. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
Background
This is a “lemon law” action. Trial was originally scheduled February 13, 2018; continued to
April 3, 2018; and then continued to April 17,2018. On April 13, 2018, counsel for plaintiff
filed a notice of settlement of the entire case.
At the June 14, 2018, at the OSC re dismissal hearing, plaintiff stated that he need to file a
motion for attomeys’ fees; the Court set this motion hearing and continued the OSC re dismissal
to this date.
On June 21, 2018, plaintiff filed this opposed motion for attorneys’ fees. (The Court observes
that on July 6, 2018, defendant filed two motions to tax costs, which are currently scheduled to
be heard on August 14, 2018.)
The Court considered the moving, opposition, reply papers, and the hearing arguments, and rules
as follows.
Evidentiary Objection:
Defendant’s evidentiary objections are contained in the proposed order.
Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.
The parties should note that the Court prefers to receive a separately lodged proposed order on
all written evidentiary objections, although such is required only on summary judgment or
adjudication, conforming to the format required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354,
subdivision (c).
Standard
Re
eo The party claiming attorneys’ fees must establish entitlement to such fees and the reasonableness
ED
eo of the fees claimed. Civic Western Corporation v. Zila Industries, Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1,
ae 16. “Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of
compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of
Document Filed Date
July 16, 2018
Case Filing Date
August 29, 2016
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
e e FILED Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Superior Court of California 2018 JUL'6 1 County of Los Angeles ivy Uliicer/Clerk eee Sherri R. Carier, & Bi , Deputy Department 51 Richard Duarte GEORGE NAHAS, Case No.: BC631893 Plaintiffs, Hearing Date: 7/16/18 Vv. Trial Date: None set MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., RULING RE: Defendants. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Background This is a “lemon law” action. Trial was originally scheduled February 13, 2018; continued to April 3, 2018; and then continued to April 17,2018. On April 13, 2018, counsel for plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the entire case. At the June 14, 2018, at the OSC re dismissal hearing, plaintiff stated that he need to file a motion for attomeys’ fees; the Court set this motion hearing and continued the OSC re dismissal to this date. On June 21, 2018, plaintiff filed this opposed motion for attorneys’ fees. (The Court observes that on July 6, 2018, defendant filed two motions to tax costs, which are currently scheduled to be heard on August 14, 2018.) The Court considered the moving, opposition, reply papers, and the hearing arguments, and rules as follows. Evidentiary Objection: Defendant’s evidentiary objections are contained in the proposed order. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED. The parties should note that the Court prefers to receive a separately lodged proposed order on all written evidentiary objections, although such is required only on summary judgment or adjudication, conforming to the format required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1354, subdivision (c). Standard Re eo The party claiming attorneys’ fees must establish entitlement to such fees and the reasonableness ED eo of the fees claimed. Civic Western Corporation v. Zila Industries, Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1, ae 16. “Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of