Defendants Andrew G. Zervos, Shado Zervos, and Cross-Complainant Summer Z Corp. motion for attorney fees. Motion granted. (See Civ. Code § 171.7.)
The court finds that Shado Zervos is the successor in interest to his deceased parents. CCP § 377.31 and CCP § 377.32.
The court exercised its discretion and considered Plaintiffs’ untimely filed Opposition brief. (See Calif. Rules Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614 [overruled on other grounds in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (1999) 29 Cal.4th 1019].
The pendency of an appeal does not divest the court of jurisdiction to determine ancillary or collateral matters which do not affect the judgment on appeal. (See Silver v. Gold (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 17, 26; Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191). This includes setting the amount of attorney’s fees already awarded in the Judgment.
The court finds that, given the specific factual allegations of Plaintiff’s compla
Hearing Date
February 26, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendants Andrew G. Zervos, Shado Zervos, and Cross-Complainant Summer Z Corp. motion for attorney fees. Motion granted. (See Civ. Code § 171.7.)
The court finds that Shado Zervos is the successor in interest to his deceased parents. CCP § 377.31 and CCP § 377.32.
The court exercised its discretion and considered Plaintiffs’ untimely filed Opposition brief. (See Calif. Rules Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d); Hobson v. Raychem Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 614 [overruled on other grounds in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, Inc. (1999) 29 Cal.4th 1019].
The pendency of an appeal does not divest the court of jurisdiction to determine ancillary or collateral matters which do not affect the judgment on appeal. (See Silver v. Gold (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 17, 26; Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 191). This includes setting the amount of attorney’s fees already awarded in the Judgment.
The court finds that, given the specific factual allegations of Plaintiff’s compla