Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2016 at 05:29:20 (UTC).

MG & AM INC VS VALENZUELA, ADAN

Case Summary

On 12/03/2013 MG AM INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against VALENZUELA, ADAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7097

  • Filing Date:

    12/03/2013

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

MG & AM INC

Defendant

VALENZUELA ADAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

VARDAPOUR LAW GROUP

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/01/2016
  • MEMO OF COST FILED. COSTS $1445.00. ACCRUED INTEREST $896.00.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2016
  • WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED TO VENTURA COUNTY. MAILED. CM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2016
  • WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED TO VNT COUNTY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/29/2016
  • WRIT OF EXECUTION REJECTED. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS REQUIRES AN ORIGINAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2016
  • WRIT OF EXECUTION REJECTED: ORIGINAL SIGNATURE REQUIRED ON MEMORANDUM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2016
  • NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER FILED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2016
  • ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2016
  • MOTION RULING ISSUED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2016
  • A/C - STIPULATION JUDGMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2016
  • ABSTRACT ISSUED: RETURNED BY MAIL/KE

    Read MoreRead Less
23 More Docket Entries
  • 01/22/2014
  • A/C - MOTION FILING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2014
  • REQUEST FOR DEFAULT FILED AND NOT ENTERED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2014
  • SUBMISSION FOR DEFAULT ONLY PENDING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • FEE WAIVER FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2014
  • RESPONSE FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2013
  • PROOF OF SERVICE TO COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2013
  • NON-JURY TRIAL SET FOR 06/03/15, 08:30 AM, DEPT 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2013
  • OSC SET 12/05/16, 08:30 AM, DEPT. 77 PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER * * DELETED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2013
  • COMPLAINT FILED

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2013
  • SUMMONS FILED

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 13K17097    Hearing Date: December 09, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Wed., December 9, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: MG & AM, Inc. v. Valenzuela COMPL. FILED: 12-03-13

CASE NUMBER:     LAM13K17097 JUDGMENT: 01-13-16

NOTICE:   OK

PROCEEDINGS:     MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IN ENFORCING JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Judgment Creditor MG & AM, Inc. dba House of Decor

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP §§ 1033.5, 680.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Judgment Creditor MG & AM, Inc. dba House of Decor Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $3,491.65, based on $3,380.00 in attorney’s fees and $111.65 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 December 7, 2020    [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 7, 2020    [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background 

On December 3, 2013, Judgment Creditor MG & AM, Inc. (“Judgment Creditor”) filed an action against Judgment Debtor Adan Valenzuela (“Judgment Debtor”). Judgment Debtor filed an answer on January 10, 2014. Pursuant to the parties' written stipulation, a Judgment of $13,642.50 was entered against Judgment Debtor on January 13, 2016. (1/13/16 Judgment.)

On June 25, 2020, Judgment Creditor filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees in Enforcing Judgment (the “Motion”). On June 30, 2020, the Court scheduled the Motion for hearing for October 1, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. and ordered Judgment Creditor to give notice of the order. (6/30/20 Minute Order.) Judgment Creditor filed a Notice of Hearing on July 6, 2020 demonstrating it gave Judgment Debtor of the scheduled hearing. (7/6/20 Notice of Hearing.)

At the initial October 1, 2020 hearing, the Court noted that Judgment Creditor stated it attached four exhibits in support of the Motion, including an itemization of tasks performed by its attorney, but that none were included. (10/1/20 Minute Order.) Judgment Creditor was ordered to file and serve said exhibits at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. (Id.) That same day, Judgment Creditor’s counsel filed a supplemental declaration.

To date, Judgment Debtor has not filed an opposition.

 

II. 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).) 

 

III. Discussion

 

Here, the Judgment from the underlying action includes an award of attorney’s fees. (1/13/16 Judgment; 4/11/16 Minute Order.) Thus, Judgment Creditor is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs incurred in enforcing the Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040.

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.)

Judgment Creditor submits a declaration from its attorney, Patrick Vardapour (“Vardapour”) in support of its request for attorney’s fees and costs. Vardapour states that his hourly rate is $325.00 per hour. (Mot., Vardapour Decl., ¶ 5.) Vardapour submits a copy of his billing records for the July 9, 2018 through June 25, 2020 period. (10/1/20 Supp. Vardapour Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. 4.) The billing record demonstrates that Vardapour spent 10.4 hours or attorney time for tasks, including, but not limited to, preparing levies, communicating with the Sheriff’s Department, communicating with Judgment Debtor, researching Judgment Debtor’s bankruptcy filings, and drafting the instant Motion. (Id.) Costs incurred to date total $111.65, which includes $61.65 for this hearing, four $8.75 e-filing fees, and one $15.00 remote appearance fee. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

In reviewing the billings 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 $3,380.00 and $111.65 in costs.

 

IV. Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Judgment Creditor MG & AM, Inc. dba House of Decor Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $3,491.65, based on $3,380.00 in attorney’s fees and $111.65 in costs.

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where MG & AM INC. DBA AXIS HOME IMPROVEMENT is a litigant