ELENA GOFMAN VS ITKIN AND SABADASH, A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP01412    Hearing Date: August 10, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., August 10, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Gofman v. Itkin & Sabadash COMPL. FILED: NONE

CASE NUMBER: 19STCP01412 JUDGMENT: 11-07-19

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE § 1717

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Elena Goffman

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP § 1717)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Elena Goffman’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is DENIED.

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 6, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of August 6, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On April 19, 2019, Plaintiff Elena Goffman filed a complaint for recognition of foreign country judgment under the Uniform Country Money Judgment Recognition Act against Defendant Itkin and Sabadash, a general partnership (“Defendant”). On May 14, 2019, Defendant filed an Answer.

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On October 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and ordered her to file a proposed judgment for the Court’s review and approval. (10/22/19 Minute Order.)

On November 7, 2019, the Court entered a Judgment against Defendant “recognizing the Moscow Judgment, entered on September 14, 2018, in the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow in the name of the Russian Federation” in the amount of $13,130.83. (11/7/19 Judgment.)

On December 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to Civil Code § 1717 (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1719 provides that, to the extent a foreign-country judgment recognized by the State of California “grants the recovery of a sum of money, the foreign-country judgment is both…(a) [c]onclusive between the parties to the same extent as the judgment of a sister state entitled to full faith and credit in this state would be conclusive [, and] (b) [e]nforceable in the same manner and to the same extent as a judgment rendered in this state.”

Civil Code section 1717 states in pertinent part: “[i]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) (Emphasis added.)

“A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702, subd. (b)(1).) In a limited civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 30 days after service of a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after the entry of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.822, subd. (a)(1).)

1. Discussion

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees incurred in attempting to collect on the underlying Moscow Judgment in Russia, in the United Kingdom, and in California based on the parties’ Information Services Agreement (the “Agreement”). (Mot., p. 3:18-28, Gofman Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) The Agreement provides that, “[p]arties are entitled to pursue any and all applicable legal remedies to recover damages incurred due to the actions of the other Party.” (Id.) She argues that the Agreement was made under the laws of Russia, that under Russian law, the losing party in litigation is required to pay the legal fees of the prevailing party, and that a judgment holder is entitled to legal fees incurred in collecting a judgment. (Mot., p. 3:18-28.)

However, as noted above, a prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees only when the underlying contract specifically provides for them. (Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (a).) The parties’ Agreement does not demonstrate the parties specifically provided for attorney’s fees for the enforcement of the contract. (See Mot., Gofman Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Notably, Plaintiff does not point to a provision in the Agreement that specifically provides for attorney’s fees, and she has not cited any case law demonstrating she is entitled to the fees she seeks.

Because the parties’ Agreement does not specifically provide for the recovery of attorney’s fees, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Elena Goffman’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.