This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/30/2018 at 16:19:53 (UTC).

Ninel Barishman Vs Carlos Rios

Case Summary

On 11/15/2017 a Property - Residential Eviction case was filed by Ninel Barishman against Carlos Rios in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1135

  • Filing Date:

    11/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Residential Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Van Nuys Courthouse East

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Marilyn M Mordetzky

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Barishman Ninel

Defendant

Rios Carlos

 

Court Documents

Summons - on Complaint

11/15/2017: Summons - on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet

11/15/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

11/15/2017: Complaint

Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) - (Carlos Rios)

11/16/2017: Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) - (Carlos Rios)

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11/15/2017: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Property Owner/Landlord Only Hearing Notice

11/15/2017: Property Owner/Landlord Only Hearing Notice

Stipulation for the Appointment of Court Commissioner as Temporary Judge

1/24/2018: Stipulation for the Appointment of Court Commissioner as Temporary Judge

Ex Parte Application - for an Order Shortening Time and Staying Writ of Possession

1/24/2018: Ex Parte Application - for an Order Shortening Time and Staying Writ of Possession

Minute Order - (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time ...)

1/24/2018: Minute Order - (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time ...)

Application for Writ of Possession

1/3/2018: Application for Writ of Possession

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - (Amended)

12/20/2017: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - (Amended)

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/20/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Default Judgment - Unlawful Detainer

12/28/2017: Default Judgment - Unlawful Detainer

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/7/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/22/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/1/2017: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/22/2017: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

12/1/2017: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/29/2018
  • Demand for Jury Trial; Filed by: Carlos Rios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2018
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by: Carlos Rios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time and Stay Writ of Possession scheduled for 01/24/2018 at 01:30 PM in Van Nuys Courthouse East at Department H updated: Result Date to 01/24/2018; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Pursuant to the request of defendant, Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment scheduled for 02/21/2018 at 01:30 PM in Van Nuys Courthouse East at Department H Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 02/02/2018 01:30 PM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Stipulation for the Appointment of Court Commissioner as Temporary Judge; Filed by: Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time and Staying Writ of Possession; Filed by: Carlos Rios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Carlos Rios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening Time and Stay Writ of Possession scheduled for 01/24/2018 at 01:30 PM in Van Nuys Courthouse East at Department H

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Motion for Order to Set Aside Default Judgment; Filed by: Carlos Rios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/24/2018
  • Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment scheduled for 02/21/2018 at 01:30 PM in Van Nuys Courthouse East at Department H

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 11/22/2017
  • ; On the Complaint filed by Ninel Barishman on 11/15/2017

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2017
  • Notice of Unlawful Detainer mailed 11/16/2017

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by: Ninel Barishman (Plaintiff); As to: Carlos Rios (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ninel Barishman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Summons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Property Owner/Landlord Only Hearing Notice; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Case assigned to Hon. Marilyn M Mordetzky in Department H Van Nuys Courthouse East

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Order to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/24/2018 at 08:30 AM in Van Nuys Courthouse East at Civil Clerk's Office

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment scheduled for 02/02/2018 at 01:30 PM in Van Nuys Courthouse East at Department H

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17VEUD01135    Hearing Date: October 29, 2019    Dept: A

# 5. Ninel Barishman v. Carlos Rios

Case No.: 17VEUD01135

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Entry of an Order of Attorney Fees

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    This is an unlawful detainer action. Defendant Carlos Rios prevailed at trial. This Court awarded $20,070.00 in attorneys’ fees on April 26, 2018. Plaintiff Ninel Barishman attempted to appeal but served a deficient opening brief. Rios was awarded costs for the appeal. Subsequently, this Court awarded Rios an additional $10,960 in fees for the appeal on May 30, 2019.

    Rios moved to vacate the May 30, 2019 award because the remittitur for the appeal was not issued until June 13, 2019, making the attorneys’ fees motion premature and void. Currently, Rios requests the Court enter an order awarding attorneys’ fees now that the remitter has issued. The motion is unopposed.

    For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

  2. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1032(a)(b) states that a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding, unless a statute expressly states otherwise. Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a) lists the costs that are recoverable and includes attorney’s fees when they are authorized by either contract, statute, or law. (C.C.P., § 1033.5(a)(10).) “ ‘ “[F]ees, if recoverable at all­pursuant either to statute or parties’ agreementare available for services at trial, and on appeal.” ’ [Citation.]” (Kachlon v. Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 352.)

The procedure for determining reasonable attorneys’ fees was set by the California Supreme Court in Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal. 3d 25, 48–49. The trial court determines the lodestar amount by “careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney . . . involved in the case.” (Serrano, supra, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 48.) In setting the lodestar, the court may consider multiple factors, e.g. the nature of the work performed and the skill and experience of the attorneys. (Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 629, 647.) “Reasonably spent” means “‘padding’ in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation.’ [Citation.]” (Rey v. Madera Unified School Dist. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1243.)

  1. Analysis

    The Court’s previous analysis of Rios’s attorneys’ fees is still applicable and is as follows:

    Rios provides declarations and hour computations the two attorneys who worked on the appeal, Mr. Hermansen and Mr. Post. Both billed at $400/hr. The Court’s previous order found Mr. Hermansen’s rate to be reasonable. Mr. Post has similar experience to Mr. Hermansen and is his firm’s main lead on appellate matters. The Court finds Mr. Post’s hourly rate to be reasonable.

    Defense counsel also provide detailed billing reports accounting for their time. The Court finds these sums to be reasonable, but subtracts four hours ($1,600) from Hermansen’s total as he has allotted four hours to combat an opposition, of which there is none.

    The Court grants the motion for attorneys’ fees, in part, and awards $10,560 in fees.

  2. Ruling

    The motion for an award of attorneys’ fees is granted. Defendant is awarded $10,560 in fees.

    Next dates:

    Notice: