This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/08/2019 at 08:33:45 (UTC).

BAILEY COMMONS CONDOMINIUM VS ALEJANDRO SILVA

Case Summary

On 10/21/2019 BAILEY COMMONS CONDOMINIUM filed an Other - Other Judgment lawsuit against ALEJANDRO SILVA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******4556

  • Filing Date:

    10/21/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judgment

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

BAILEY COMMONS CONDOMINIUM

BAILEY COMMONS CONDOMINIUM AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

Defendant

SILVA ALEJANDRO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BAILLIO AUSTIN

 

Court Documents

Judgment - Judgment

10/31/2019: Judgment - Judgment

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

10/31/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/21/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment - Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

10/21/2019: Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment - Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/21/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Bailey Commons Condominium, an Arizona non-profit corporation (Plaintiff): Organization Name changed from Bailey Commons Condominium to Bailey Commons Condominium, an Arizona non-profit corporation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketNotice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Issued and Filed by: Bailey Commons Condominium (Plaintiff); As to: Alejandro Silva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/31/2019
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff Bailey Commons Condominium, an Arizona non-profit corporation against Defendant Alejandro Silva on the Petition filed by Bailey Commons Condominium on 10/21/2019 for the principal amount of $4,600.62, interest of $2,428.18, and costs of $225.00 for a total of $7,253.80.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2019
  • DocketCase assigned in ROOM 118 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: Bailey Commons Condominium (Plaintiff); As to: Alejandro Silva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Bailey Commons Condominium (Plaintiff); As to: Alejandro Silva (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP04556    Hearing Date: August 26, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., August 26, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Bailey Commons Condominium v. Silva JUDGMENT (AZ): 01-17-11

CASE NUMBER: 19STCP04556 JUDGMENT (CA): 10-31-19

NOTICE: OK

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Judgment Creditor Bailey Commons Condominium

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

(CCP § 685.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditor Bailey Commons Condominium’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $2,833.72, based on $2,220.00 in attorneys’ fees and $613.72 in costs.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 24, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On January 17, 2011, the Justice Court of Agua Fria in the County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, entered a judgment in favor of Judgment Creditor Bailey Commons Condominium (“Judgment Creditor”) and against Judgment Debtor Alejandro Silva (“Judgment Debtor”). (RJN, Exh. 2.) The judgment was entered in the amount of $2,325.15, based on a principal amount of $1,124.15, costs of $186.00, and attorneys’ fees of $1,015.00 (the “Judgment”). (Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.) The Court also awarded “all reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by [Judgment Creditor] after entry of this judgment in collecting the amounts listed in this Judgment.” (Id. at ¶ 3.)

On October 31, 2019, Judgment Creditor domesticated the Judgment in California in the amount of $7,253.80. (10/31/19 Judgment.)

On April 9, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

  1. Request for Judicial Notice

Judgment Creditor requests judicial notice of (1) the relevant portions of the Condominium Declaration for Bailey Commons Condominium recorded in the Maricopa County, Arizona Recorder’s Office, Instrument No. 20060171473; (2) a copy of the Judgment entered in the Agua Fria Justice Court, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona, entitled Bailey Commons Condominium v. Alejandro Silva, Case No. CC2010-483906RC; and (3) a copy of the Judgment entered in this action, Case No. 19STCP04556. (RJN, ¶¶ 1-3, Exhs. 1-3.)

Judgment Creditor’s request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c)-(d).)

  1. Legal Standard

The Court’s objective is to award attorney’s fee at the fair market value based on the particular action. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) “The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing in the community for similar work.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th

1084, 1095.) “‘[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the 'lodestar,' i.e., the

number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate . . . .’” (Ketchum

v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1134.) The lodestar method is based on several factors, as relevant

to each particular case: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill

displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other

employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Id. at 1132.) “The

‘‘experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his

court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the

appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.’’” (Id.) A negative modifier is appropriate

when duplicative work is performed. (Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 819.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 685.070, subdivision (a) states in pertinent part: “The judgment creditor may claim under this section the following costs of enforcing a judgment: . . . (6) Attorney's fees, if allowed by Section 685.040.” Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040 provides that a “judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment.” Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are expressly excluded unless otherwise provided by law. (Id.) Attorney’s fees that are incurred in enforcing a judgment are collectible as costs “if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of section 1033.5” which allows for attorney’s fees when authorized by contract. (Id; Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A).)

In addition, Code of Civil Procedure, section 685.080 subdivision (b) requires that:

“[t]he notice of motion shall describe the costs claimed, shall state their amount, and shall be supported by an affidavit of a person who has knowledge of the facts stating that to the person's best knowledge and belief the costs are correct, are reasonable and necessary, and have not been satisfied. The notice of motion shall be served on the judgment debtor. Service shall be made personally or by mail.”

  1. Discussion

Here, the Judgment from the underlying action provides for “all reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by [Judgment Creditor] after entry of this judgment in collecting the amounts listed in this Judgment.” (RJN, Exh. 2, ¶ 3.) Thus, Judgment Creditor is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing the Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040.

Judgment Creditor submits a declaration from its attorney, B. Austin Baillio (“Baillio”) in support of its request for attorneys’ fees and costs. Baillio states that his hourly rate is $300.00 and that he billed two $450.00 flat fees for a writ of execution and a bank levy. (Mot., Baillio Decl., ¶¶ 7, 11, Exh. A.) Baillio also submits a copy of his billing records for the July 2, 2019 through April 6, 2020 period, and declares that the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred were reasonable and necessary to collect on the Judgment. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 11, 13, Exh. A.)

A court determining the number of hours reasonably expended on a case “must carefully review attorney documentation of hours expended.” (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1132.) In doing so, the court must exclude hours that “were not reasonably expended in pursuit of successful claims,” (Harman v. City & County of San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal. App.4th 407, 417), “attorney time spent on services which produce no tangible benefit for the client,” (Meister v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 637, 652), or hours that were otherwise “duplicative or excessive.” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 161.)

The billing record demonstrates that Baillio billed 4.4 hours, totaling $2,220.00, for time spent on post-judgment collection efforts, which include domesticating the Arizona Judgment in California, serving a notice of entry of Judgment, obtaining a writ of execution and bank levy, obtaining and recording an abstract of judgment, drafting a memorandum of costs after the Judgment was entered, and drafting this Motion. (Mot., p. 5:1-5, Baillio Decl., ¶ 13.) The billing record also includes an anticipated .4 hours for the hearing on this Motion. (Id. at ¶ 9, Exh. A.) Costs incurred to date total $613.72, which include maintenance fees, filing fees, and an $86.00 CourtCall fee to appear at the hearing on this Motion. (Id. at ¶ 13, Exh. A)

In reviewing the billing records, the Court finds that the rate charged is reasonable and that the hours charged were reasonably expended in collection efforts in Judgment Creditor’s interest. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Judgment Creditor’s request for $2,220.00 in attorneys’ fees and $613.72 in costs.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Creditor Bailey Commons Condominium’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $2,833.72, based on $2,220.00 in attorneys’ fees and $613.72 in costs.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer BAILLIO AUSTIN