This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/09/2020 at 08:48:05 (UTC).

DEBORAH DAVIS VS MARCIA GOLAN

Case Summary

On 02/20/2018 DEBORAH DAVIS filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against MARCIA GOLAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GEORGINA T. RIZK. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2881

  • Filing Date:

    02/20/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

GEORGINA T. RIZK

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

DAVIS DEBORAH

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

GOLAN MARCIA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

ROSENBERG CHARLES

WEST JAMES

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

KREITENBERG RENA EINHORN

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice Of Taking Defendants Motion For Reconsideration Pursuant To Ccp 1008 Of The Courts September 19 2019 Order Denying Golans Motion For Summary Adjudication Set F

1/30/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice Of Taking Defendants Motion For Reconsideration Pursuant To Ccp 1008 Of The Courts September 19 2019 Order Denying Golans Motion For Summary Adjudication Set F

Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion

1/23/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply in Support of Motion

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order TO VACATE TRIAL DATE PURSUANT TO ACCEPTED C.C.P. 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE AND TO SET A TRIAL SETTING/STATUS CONFERENCE RE SETTLEMENT AS A

11/18/2019: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order TO VACATE TRIAL DATE PURSUANT TO ACCEPTED C.C.P. 998 OFFER TO COMPROMISE AND TO SET A TRIAL SETTING/STATUS CONFERENCE RE SETTLEMENT AS A

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

10/29/2019: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Advance Motion For Attorne...)

10/16/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Advance Motion For Attorne...)

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON GOLAN'S MOTION TO RECLASSIFY THE CASE TO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIR

10/28/2019: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO ADVANCE THE HEARING ON GOLAN'S MOTION TO RECLASSIFY THE CASE TO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIR

Motion for Reconsideration - Motion for Reconsideration

9/26/2019: Motion for Reconsideration - Motion for Reconsideration

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 09/12/2019

9/12/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 09/12/2019

Disassociation of Attorney - Disassociation of Attorney

9/9/2019: Disassociation of Attorney - Disassociation of Attorney

Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

8/26/2019: Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Cross-Defendant Deborah Davis In Opposition to Cross-Complainant's Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues

8/26/2019: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of Cross-Defendant Deborah Davis In Opposition to Cross-Complainant's Motion for Summary Adjudication of Issues

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/26/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

8/26/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

7/24/2019: Association of Attorney - Association of Attorney

Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees

6/21/2019: Motion for Attorney Fees - Motion for Attorney Fees

Cross-Complaint - (Amended)

5/15/2018: Cross-Complaint - (Amended)

Answer

4/23/2018: Answer

92 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/21/2020
  • DocketOn the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by Deborah Davis on 03/12/2018, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Deborah Davis as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 03/04/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 03/04/2020; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 03/04/2020; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2020
  • DocketNotice of Orders Continuing Hearings on Motion for Attorney's Fees and Motion for Reconsideration and Giving Notice of Court Location; Filed by: Deborah Davis (Plaintiff); As to: Marcia Golan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2020
  • DocketNotice Notice Of Taking Defendants Motion For Reconsideration Pursuant To Ccp 1008 Of The Courts September 19 2019 Order Denying Golans Motion For Summary Adjudication Set For Hearing On March 04 2020 Off Calendar; Filed by: Marcia Golan (Defendant); As to: Deborah Davis (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2020
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration scheduled for 03/04/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 01/30/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
139 More Docket Entries
  • 03/12/2018
  • DocketSummons on Amended Complaint (1st); Issued and Filed by: Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Deborah Davis (Plaintiff); As to: Marcia Golan (Defendant); Service Date: 02/22/18; Service Cost: 0.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint (1st): Status Date changed from 03/12/2018 to 02/20/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Deborah Davis (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Deborah Davis (Plaintiff); As to: Marcia Golan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Georgina T. Rizk in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 08/20/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 02/23/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC02881    Hearing Date: March 04, 2020    Dept: 26

Davis v. Golan, et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

(CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Marica Golan’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

In October 2015, Defendant Marica Golan (“Defendant”) executed a fee agreement hiring Plaintiff Deborah Davis dba Law Offices of Deborah Davis (“Plaintiff”) to represent her as legal counsel in a dissolution proceeding (“the dissolution proceeding”). In December 2015, the dissolution proceeding resolved with a stipulation for entry of judgment pursuant to which Defendant received certain real property as her sole and separate property. The parties’ contractual relationship ended in June 2016. In July 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Lien in the dissolution proceeding. In October 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Notice of Lien and recorded it with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office.

Plaintiff filed the instant action for breach of contract against Defendant on February 20, 2018 and filed the First Amended Complaint on March 12, 2018. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay fees owed for her work on the dissolution proceeding. Defendant cross-complained for breach of fiduciary duty, slander, among other things, with the First Amended Cross-Complaint filed on May 15, 2018. On May 9, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Expunge the Amended Notice of Lien.

On June 21, 2019, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. On August 26, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Answer to the Cross-Complaint. On September 12, 2019, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action for slander of title. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration on September 26, 2019.

On November 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement indicating that the settlement terms would be performed and a request for dismissal would be filed by April 30, 2020. The Notice of Conditional Settlement also indicated a “Motion for Attorney’s Fees – To Be Heard Per Settlement Terms” was scheduled for hearing on January 30, 2020. On January 14, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed the Complaint with prejudice.

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs on January 16, 2020, and Defendant replied on January 23, 2020. Thereafter, Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs and the motion for reconsideration were re-set for hearing on March 4, 2020. The motion for reconsideration was then taken off-calendar, leaving only the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs for hearing.

Discussion

Defendant moves for attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party on the motion to expunge the amended notice of attorney lien. The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38, which states “[t]he court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of attorney's fees and costs unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.38.) Defendant contends her attorney spent more than 60 hours on the motion to expunge and requests attorney’s fees of $39,600.00 plus costs of $506.8.

Discussion

Defendant moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38, which states in relevant part: “The court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of attorney's fees and costs unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.38.)

On May 9, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Expunge the Amended Notice of Lien, in which Defendant argued that the attorney charging lien had to be expunged. The Motion to Expunge was brought on multiple grounds, including Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30 and Government Code section 27279, subdivision (a). In ruling on the Motion to Expunge, the Court found that the attorney charging lien was not subject to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30. Specifically, the Court ruled that:

A charging lien is not a lis pendens. A charging lien gives an attorney a lien to satisfy attorney fees from funds or property awarded to the client. (See Fletcher v. Davis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 61, 66.) In fact, notice or recordation of a charging lien is not required for it to be effective; it is effective upon execution. (Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1175; Cetenko v. United California Bank (1982) 30 Cal.3d 528, 532-533.) A lis pendens, on the other hand, is a recorded instrument that gives constructive notice of a pending lawsuit that affects title to real property. (See Gale v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.4th 1388, 1395.) A “real property claim” is a cause of action that would, if meritorious, affect the title or the right to possession to specific property or the use of an easement other than an easement acquired by statute by a regulated public utility. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.20.) Here, there is no pending lawsuit that affects title to real property. The instant action is simply for breach of the parties’ retainer agreement, account stated, and unjust enrichment. The fact that a charging lien exists as to any recovery by Defendant in the dissolution proceeding does not affect her title or right to possession in the subject property.

(Minute Order, dated 5/9/19, pp. 2-3.) The Court based its determination that the recordation of the attorney lien should be expunged on the provisions of the Government Code, specifically those provisions that define a recordable instrument. The Court ruled that an attorney charging lien does not fall within any statutory definition of recordable instrument. (Id. at p. 3.) The Court’s ruling was not based on Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30.

This was further explained in the Court’s order denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication. Therein, the Court disavowed Defendant’s representation that its ruling on the Motion to Expunge determined the recording of the attorney charging lien caused a “cloud on title.” (Minute Order, dated 9/12/19, pp. 3-4.) The Court expressly stated that no part of its ruling on the Motion to Expunge made such a finding because “[t]he Court’s finding was solely that Plaintiff had not shown that such a lien was a recordable instrument.” (Ibid.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Defendant cannot move for attorney’s fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38 because she did not prevail on the Motion to Expunge under that Chapter.

Defendant Marica Golan’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.