HEARING DATE: January 10, 2020
CASE NUMBER: BC415114
CASE NAME: Arkius Inc. v. Hyundae Health Center, Inc., et al.
TRIAL DATE: None. Notice of Settlement March 11, 2016
MOTION: Plaintiff Arkius, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney Fees
MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff, Arkius, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Charles Yeh, Christine Yeh
MOVING PAPERS: Timely filed September 30, 2019
OPPOSITION: Timely filed December 27, 2019
REPLY: None filed as of January 8, 2020
TENTATIVE: Arkius’ motion for attorney’s fees is granted in-part. Arkius is awarded attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $59,269.47 as the prevailing party on Contract Nos. 3 and 4. Plaintiff to give notice.
Background
Much of the description of the facts of this case are taken from the last two court of appeal decisions and the factual discussions in the trial court’s minute order dated May 13, 2013 and the ruling on the Arkius motion for fees. The court is somewhat hampered in deciding this motion by the parties’ fai
Hearing Date
January 10, 2020
Type
Other Contract Dispute (not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Other) 03/11/2016
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
HEARING DATE: January 10, 2020
CASE NUMBER: BC415114
CASE NAME: Arkius Inc. v. Hyundae Health Center, Inc., et al.
TRIAL DATE: None. Notice of Settlement March 11, 2016
MOTION: Plaintiff Arkius, Inc.’s Motion for Attorney Fees
MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff, Arkius, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Charles Yeh, Christine Yeh
MOVING PAPERS: Timely filed September 30, 2019
OPPOSITION: Timely filed December 27, 2019
REPLY: None filed as of January 8, 2020
TENTATIVE: Arkius’ motion for attorney’s fees is granted in-part. Arkius is awarded attorney fees and costs in the total amount of $59,269.47 as the prevailing party on Contract Nos. 3 and 4. Plaintiff to give notice.
Background
Much of the description of the facts of this case are taken from the last two court of appeal decisions and the factual discussions in the trial court’s minute order dated May 13, 2013 and the ruling on the Arkius motion for fees. The court is somewhat hampered in deciding this motion by the parties’ fai