This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/25/2020 at 13:47:43 (UTC).

MARICOPA MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS ARA MURADYAM, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/24/2019 MARICOPA MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION filed an Other - Other Judgment lawsuit against ARA MURADYAM. 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:

    *******4631

  • Filing Date:

    10/24/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judgment

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MARICOPA MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AN ARIZONA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

Defendants

MURADYAM ARA

MURADYAM JANE DOE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BAILLIO AUSTIN

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest - Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

1/10/2020: Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest - Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/19/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/19/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Judgment - Judgment Based on Sister-State Judgment

10/24/2019: Judgment - Judgment Based on Sister-State Judgment

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

10/24/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

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

10/24/2019: Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment - Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/24/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

10/24/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/10/2020
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Ara Muradyam (Defendant); Jane Doe Muradyam (Defendant); Service Date: 01/09/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Jane Doe Muradyam (Defendant); Service Cost: 1.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/19/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Ara Muradyam (Defendant); Service Cost: 1.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • DocketCase assigned in ROOM 118 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation (Plaintiff): Organization Name changed from Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association to Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • DocketApplication for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (Plaintiff); As to: Ara Muradyam (Defendant); Jane Doe Muradyam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • DocketJudgment Based on Sister-State Judgment; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (Plaintiff); As to: Ara Muradyam (Defendant); Jane Doe Muradyam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • DocketNotice Notice of Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment; Issued and Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (Plaintiff); As to: Ara Muradyam (Defendant); Jane Doe Muradyam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (Plaintiff); As to: Ara Muradyam (Defendant); Jane Doe Muradyam (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2019
  • DocketCourt orders judgment entered for Plaintiff Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association, an Arizona non-profit corporation against Defendant Jane Doe Muradyam and Defendant Ara Muradyam on the Petition filed by Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association on 10/24/2019 for the principal amount of $5,885.25, interest of $972.24, and costs of $225.00 for a total of $7,082.49.

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCP04631    Hearing Date: June 2, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Judgment Creditor Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

(CCP § 685.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditor Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $4,158.78.

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 May 28, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 28, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 24, 2019, Judgment Creditor Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association (“Judgment Creditor”) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment against Judgment Debtors Ara Muradyam and Jane Doe Muradyam, husband and wife (collectively, “Judgment Debtors”). That same day, a judgment of $7,082.489 was entered.

On November 13, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

II. Request for Judicial Notice

Judgment Creditor requests that the Court take judicial notice of (1) the relevant portions of the Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Maricopa Meadows recorded in the State of Arizona, Pinal County Recorder’s office on March 18, 2004, Fee No. 2004-019765; (2) copy of the judgment entered in the Maricopa Justice Court, County of Pinal, State of Arizona entitled Maricopa Homeowners Association v. Ara Muradyam and Jane Doe Muradyam, Case No. CV2012-1264, on March 10, 2014; and (3) copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment entered in the instant action. (Mot., RJN, Exhs. 1-3.)

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

III. Legal Standard

The Court’s objective is to award attorney’s fees 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.”

IV. Discussion

Here, the judgment in the underlying action provides for “all costs and attorney fees incurred by [Judgment Creditor] after submission of this judgment for entry by the Court in collecting the amounts listed in this Judgment.” (Mot., RJN, Exh. 2.) Thus, Judgment Creditor is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in enforcing its judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040.

Judgment Creditor seeks attorney’s fees and costs incurred between August 26, 2019 and November 10, 2020 and submits the declaration of its attorney B. Austin Baillio (“Baillio”) in support of its request. (Mot., p. 4, Baillio Decl., ¶¶ 7-8, Exh. A.) Baillio states the judgment has not yet been fully satisfied. (Id. at ¶ 4.)

Judgment Creditor requests $3,390.00 based on 6.8 hours of attorney time and three flat fees of $450.00 for preparing two separate writs of execution and two separate earnings withholding orders. (Id., ¶ 8, Exh. A.) Baillio billed 3.2 hours for time spent domesticating the Arizona judgment in California, calculating balances, preparing orders and notices, drafting an affidavit of identity, reviewing background information on Judgment Debtors’ assets, and drafting correspondence to the County Recorder’s office regarding an abstract of judgment. (Id.) Baillio also billed 2.0 hours for drafting this Motion and an expected 1.5 hours to appear at the hearing. (Id.) Attorney Brian Morgan billed .1 hours for time spent in collection efforts. (Id. at ¶ 7, Exh. A.) Judgment Creditor also seeks costs of $768.78, which include service fees, filing fees, maintenance fees, and remote appearance fees. (Id. at ¶ 14, Exh. A.)

Having reviewed the attached billing record, the Court finds the time billed, the rate charged, and the costs sought to be reasonable and incurred to benefit Judgment Creditor’s collection efforts. Thus, Judgment Creditor is awarded $4,158.78 in attorney’s fees and costs as requested.

V. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Creditor Maricopa Meadows Homeowners Association’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $4,158.78.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MARICOPA MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BAILLIO AUSTIN