Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/28/2019 at 11:16:15 (UTC).

LAW OFFICES OF MARLO VAN OORSC VS DANESHRAD, JOSEPH

Case Summary

On 02/14/2012 LAW OFFICES OF MARLO VAN OORSC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DANESHRAD, JOSEPH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK, PATRICK T MADDEN, GRACIELA FREIXES, DAVID L. MINNING, LESLIE E BROWN, LESLIE E. BROWN, PATRICIA NIETO, RANDOLPH HAMMOCK, BENNY C. OSORIO, DAVID SOTELO, ELAINE LU, YOLANDA OROZCO and DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0517

  • Filing Date:

    02/14/2012

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

LESLIE E BROWN

Presiding Judges

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

PATRICK T MADDEN

GRACIELA FREIXES

DAVID L. MINNING

LESLIE E. BROWN

PATRICIA NIETO

RANDOLPH HAMMOCK

BENNY C. OSORIO

DAVID SOTELO

ELAINE LU

YOLANDA OROZCO

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Respondents

LAW OFFICES OF MARLO VAN OORSCHOT APLC

VAN OORSCHOT LAW GROUP PC.

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Appellants

DANESHRAD JOSEPH

DANESHRAD JOSEPHAN INDIVIDUAL

Cross Defendant

ARYEH JAMSHID

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Defendant Attorneys

JOSHUA P. FRIEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES - FRIEDMAN, JOSHUA P.

JOSHUA P. FRIEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES - JOSHUA P FRIEDMAN ESQ

Attorney at JOSHUA P. FRIEDMAN AND ASSOCIATES

FRIEDMAN JOSHUA P ESQ

LAW OFFICES OF ROOZY J SAVISS - ROOZY J SAVISS

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF ROOZY J SAVISS

SAVISS ROOZY J

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF ROOZY J SAVISS - ROOZY J SAVISS

Attorney at LAW OFFICES OF ROOZY J SAVISS

SAVISS ROOZY J

 

Court Documents

Other - (name extension) - Other - NOTICE TO SUBMIT ESTIMATE FOR TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

4/6/2015: Other - (name extension) - Other - NOTICE TO SUBMIT ESTIMATE FOR TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Re Reply to Motion for Attorney's Fees

6/27/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Re Reply to Motion for Attorney's Fees

Reply (name extension)

7/24/2017: Reply (name extension)

Appeal Document

8/3/2017: Appeal Document

Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Proceeding) of 08/14/2017

8/14/2017: Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Ex-Parte Proceeding) of 08/14/2017

Minute Order - (Ex-Parte Proceeding)

8/14/2017: Minute Order - (Ex-Parte Proceeding)

Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

8/17/2017: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

Opposition (name extension) - to Plaintiff's Motion Objecting to Sufficiency of Personal Sureties on Appeal

8/17/2017: Opposition (name extension) - to Plaintiff's Motion Objecting to Sufficiency of Personal Sureties on Appeal

Other - (name extension) - Personal Surety on Appeal

8/17/2017: Other - (name extension) - Personal Surety on Appeal

Reply (name extension) - to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Objecting to Sufficiency of Personal Sureties on Appeal

8/18/2017: Reply (name extension) - to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Objecting to Sufficiency of Personal Sureties on Appeal

Minute Order - (Hearing on Motion for New Trial; Hearing on Motion - Other OB...)

8/23/2017: Minute Order - (Hearing on Motion for New Trial; Hearing on Motion - Other OB...)

Declaration (name extension)

8/29/2017: Declaration (name extension)

Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Objecting to Sufficiency of Persona...) of 09/06/2017

9/6/2017: Certificate of Mailing for - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Objecting to Sufficiency of Persona...) of 09/06/2017

Other - (name extension)

9/12/2017: Other - (name extension)

Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Submit Estimated Cost - BV032433

10/16/2017: Appeal - Notice Court Reporter to Submit Estimated Cost - BV032433

Appeal - Notice to Appellant of Estimated Transcript Costs - BV032433

10/30/2017: Appeal - Notice to Appellant of Estimated Transcript Costs - BV032433

Appeal Document - BV032433 - Notice to Reporter to Stop preparation of transcript on appeal

12/8/2017: Appeal Document - BV032433 - Notice to Reporter to Stop preparation of transcript on appeal

Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - BV032433

9/26/2018: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - BV032433

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/04/2018
  • DocketAppeal - Reporter Appeal Transcripts; Issued by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2018
  • DocketAppeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 1 - 5 Volumes Certified; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • DocketAppeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal BV032433; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2018
  • DocketAmended Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketWrit - Return ( Unsatisfied);; Costs Credits: 0.00; Interest Credits: 0.00; Principal Credits: 0.00; Possession: No; Judgment Satisfaction Type: Unsatisfied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketWrit - Return ( Partially Satisfied);; Costs Credits: 24.63; Interest Credits: 0.00; Principal Credits: 0.00; Possession: No; Judgment Satisfaction Type: Partially Satisfied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- Writ of Execution: Result: Returned and Filed; Result Date: 03/14/2018

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2018
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2017
  • DocketAppeal Document BV032433 - Notice to Reporter to Stop preparation of transcript on appeal; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • DocketAppeal - Notice Court Reporter to Prepare Appeal Transcript BV032433; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
300 More Docket Entries
  • 03/15/2012
  • DocketSUMMONS ON CROSS-COMPLAINT FILED .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2012
  • DocketANSWER/CROSS-COMPLAINT, VIA FAX RECEIVED AS TO (DANESHRAD, JOSEPH)AN INDIVIDUAL .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2012
  • DocketANSWER FILED OF (DANESHRAD, JOSEPH)AN INDIVIDUAL . RECEIPT # BH045702002 .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2012
  • DocketCROSS-COMPLAINT FILED. CROSS-COMPLAINANT(S): (DANESHRAD, JOSEPH)AN INDIVIDUAL . CROSS-DEFENDANT(S): (ARYEH, JAMSHID) . RECEIPT # BH045702002 .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/29/2012
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE RE: SUMMONS & COMPLAINT FILED. SERVED AS TO (DANESHRAD, JOSEPH)AN INDIVIDUAL SERVED LYLE RIVER, PERSON IN CHARGE ON 2/28/12 . COSTS OF $ 65.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2012
  • DocketCOLLECTIONS CASE COMPLAINT FILED PURSUANT TO CRC 3.740. RN BH053524041. Filing Fee: 370.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2012
  • DocketSUMMONS ISSUED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2012
  • DocketSUMMONS FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2012
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT ON FILE. CASE IS ASSIGNED TO DEPT. 006 OF HONORABLE LESLIE E BROWN .

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2012
  • DocketNON-APPEARANCE CASE MANAGEMENT REVIEW SCHEDULED FOR 06/13/12 AT 08:30A M, IN DEPT. 006 . CLERK`S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE MAILED/GIVEN TO RESPECTIVE PARTIES/COUNSEL ON 02/14/12

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 12CB0517    Hearing Date: August 10, 2020    Dept: 26

Law Offices of Marlo Van Oorschot, APLC v. Daneshrad, et al.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

(CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5, 1717; CRC Rule 3.1702)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Law Offices of Marlo Van Oorschot, APLC’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,550.50.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Law Offices of Marlo Van Oorschot, APLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of consulting agreement against Defendant Joseph Daneshrad (“Defendant”) on February 14, 2012. Following a bench trial before Judge David Minning, the court issued a decision in favor of Plaintiff on December 19, 2014. Despite Defendant’s request for a statement of decision, Judge Minning declined to issue one. On March 2, 2015, Judge Minning granted Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the reduced amount of $40,000.00. On June 5, 2015, Judge Minning entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $19,396.99, plus interest, costs and fees. On August 10, 2016, the Appellate Division issued a remittitur vacating the judgment because no statement of decision was issued and ordered the trial court to issue a statement of decision.

Following remand, Judge Minning issued a statement of decision and judgment was entered on July 3, 2017 in the amount of $19,396.99 principal, $8,297.60 interest, costs per memorandum of costs and attorney’s fees by motion. (Notice of Entry of Judgment, filed 7/3/17.) Attorney’s fees of $85,000.00 were awarded on the judgment. (Amended Judgment, filed 9/6/17.)

August 23, 2017, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for new trial. Defendant also filed a notice of appeal of the judgment and attorney’s fees award. On December 27, 2019, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and award of attorney’s fees. The Appellate Division further awarded Plaintiff its costs on appeal.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Memorandum of Costs on Appeal on January 23, 2020. On July 28, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition. The Court notes that the opposition was improperly served by regular mail on the same date, only nine-court days before the hearing, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (c).

Discussion

Right to Recovery Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in this action. A prevailing party in entitled to recover costs, including attorneys’ fees when authorized by contract. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd. (a)(4); § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A).) Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure section 1717 provides that attorneys’ fees and costs shall be awarded to the prevailing party in an action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1717, subd. (a).) Regarding attorney’s fees on appeal, an award of costs on appeal allows a party to move for attorneys’ fees under Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1702 pursuant to a statute or contract. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rules 8.278, subd. (d)(2); 3.1702, subd. (a).) Based on the attorney’s fees provision in the Consulting Agreement and the Appellate Division’s award of costs on appeal, Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorney’s fees expended defending the judgment against the motion for new trial and the second appeal.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff is the prevailing party on the contract as the party in whose favor judgment was entered on August 3, 2017. Nor is it disputed that the parties’ Consulting Agreement contains an attorney’s fees provision. (Motion, Van Oorschot Decl., Exh. A at ¶10.) Indeed, the Appellate Division affirmed this Court’s determination that Plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. (Remittitur, filed 12/27/19, p. 20:15.)

Timeliness of Motion for Attorney’s Fees

“A notice of motion to claim attorney's fees on appeal--other than the attorney's fees on appeal claimed under (b)--under a statute or contract requiring the court to determine entitlement to the fees, the amount of the fees, or both, must be served and filed within the time for serving and filing the memorandum of costs under rule 8.278(c)(1) in an unlimited civil case or under rule 8.891(c)(1) in a limited civil case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1702, subd. (c)(1).) Under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.891, subdivision (c)(1): “Within 30 days after the clerk sends notice of issuance of the remittitur, a party claiming costs awarded by the appellate division must serve and file in the trial court a verified memorandum of costs under rule 3.1700(a)(1).

Here, the clerk sent issuance of the remittitur on December 27, 2019 and the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees was filed and served on January 23, 2020. Therefore, the Motion for Attorney’s Fees is timely.

Amount of Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff seeks to recover $50,353.00 in attorney’s fees based on 125.3 hours of attorney time. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel billed the following:

· David B. Parker: 1.8 hours at $500/hour = $900.00

· Elliott Benjamin: 0.2 hours at $350/hour = $70.00

· Steven S. Wang: 49.1 hours at $350/hour = $17,185.00

· Jonathan A. Feldheim: 5.7 hours at $350/hour = $1,995.00

· Sally Smith: 1.6 hours at $175/hour = $280.00

· Joshua P. Friedman: 9.5 hours at $450/hour = $4,275.00

· Joseph Klapach: 57.4 hours at $450/hour = $25,830.00

(Motion, Parker Decl., ¶16; Friedman Decl., ¶¶3-4; Klapach Decl., ¶6.)

The Court finds that the rates billed are reasonable, nor does Defendant challenge them. The rates are comparable to those attorneys with similar backgrounds and experience. (Motion, Parker Decl., ¶¶9-12; Klapach Decl., ¶¶8-9.) None of the attorney’s charged more than $500.00 per hour, despite having many years of experience. (Ibid.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that many of the attorney’s fees are unreasonable. First, Defendant argues that Plaintiff must show how fees sought in excess of the schedule set forth in Los Angeles Superior Court Rule 3.214, subdivision (a) are reasonable. The Court does not find the schedule under Rule 3.214 applicable here. The Rule allows the Court to determine fees outside of the schedule, which it has already done for pre-judgment fees. Attorney’s fees per the schedule on a judgment between 10,000.01 to $50,000 should be $870 plus 6% of the excess over $10,000. So for a judgment of $19,396.99, the schedule provides for fees of $1,433.82. Yet the Court awarded fees of $85,000.00 on the $19,396.99 judgment. Similarly, the Court now finds that the schedule of fees under Rule 3.214 is inapplicable to fees sought in this Motion. Not only because the lodestar method is the appropriate means of calculating fees, but also because Rule 3.214 only applies to attorney’s fees sought on a judgment. This Motion seeks attorney’s fees pertaining to post-judgment work.

Defendant also contends that Plaintiff should not be awarded fees for its unsuccessful objection to the surety on appeal. The Court notes that there were several issues raised in that motion, including Plaintiff’s proper name as judgment creditor and Defendant’s reliance on an improper deed. The Court continued the hearing multiple times to allow Defendant to correct the defects with the surety, and it was only upon Defendant’s proof of such correction that Plaintiff’s motion was denied. (Minute Order, 9/20/17.) Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff was unsuccessful in its objection to the surety on appeal belies the fact that but for Plaintiff’s motion the improprieties in the surety would not have been corrected. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount of attorney’s fees expended on its objection to the surety.

Third, Defendant contends the amount of time sought for Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was new trial is excessive. Defendant’s objection tries to oversimplify what was required to address the arguments raised in the motion for new trial. Plaintiff not only wrote a 9-page brief in opposition to the motion, but spent time reviewing the motion itself, analyzing trial transcripts, researching how an appeal impacts a motion for new trial, and attending all related hearings. (Motion, Parker, Exh. A; Klapach, Exh. 3.) Defendant does not explain why time spent on these additional efforts should not be recoverable.

Defendant also contends the number of hours spent on the second appeal are unreasonable because it primarily duplicated the first appeal. The Court does not agree. The first appeal concerned the trial court’s decision not to issue a statement of decision. (Remittitur, filed 10/14/16.) The second appeal was a full challenge to the judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. Time spent on the second appeal involved understanding and complying with the numerous procedural requirements on appeal, preparing the 37-page appellate brief, communicating with defense counsel regarding the appellate surety, and preparing for oral argument. (Motion, Parker, Exh. A; Klapach, Exh. 3.) The number of hours billed for the second appeal is reasonable based on the complexity of the issues raised. The Appellate Division’s remittitur spent 20 pages addressing each of the arguments raised by Defendant. (Remittitur, filed 12/27/19.)

Regarding Defendant’s reference to $238.00 in costs that Plaintiff seeks to recover as attorney’s fees, the Court cannot locate this request in the evidence and will not reduce the fees by that amount.

Defendant does correctly point out that the attorney’s fees billed on July 3, 2017 for attending the hearing on the motion for pre-judgment attorney’s fees and downloading that tentative ruling were previously awarded. (Opp., Saviss Decl., Exh. 8, p. 3.) Fees of $802.50 for time billed on July 3, 2017 will not be awarded.

However, the Court does not find that the estimated time to prepare the reply and attend the hearing on the Motion is inflated. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, Plaintiff does not seek 9.5 hours for the reply and hearing. Only six (6) hours is requested, which the Court finds reasonable, if any reply is filed. (Motion, Friedman Decl., ¶3.)

Finally, Defendant requests an off-set of $3,590.84 from the attorney’s fees awarded based on the costs Defendant was awarded on his first appeal. Defendant previously made the same request in opposing the pre-judgment attorney’s fees motion and relies on the same authority that the Court already determined to be “dicta that has been roundly criticized by later­decided cases.” (Opp., Saviss Decl., Exh. 8, p. 2.) The Court holds to this reasoning and does not find Defendant is entitled to an offset.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the lodestar calculation of the reasonable attorney’s hours billed warrants awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees of $49,550.50.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Law Offices of Marlo Van Oorschot, APLC’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,550.50.

Moving party to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SAVISS ROOZY J. ESQ.