This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/04/2019 at 06:02:14 (UTC).

CHARLES E NOURRCIER ET AL VS MOHAMMAD S ULLAH ETAL

Case Summary

On 12/28/2016 CHARLES E NOURRCIER filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against MOHAMMAD S ULLAH ETAL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARK C. KIM. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0959

  • Filing Date:

    12/28/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MARK C. KIM

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CHARLES E NOURRCIER

KAREN D NOURRCIER

NOURRCIER KAREN D

NOURRCIER CHARLES E

Defendants

DOES 1 - 100 INC.

MOHAMMAD S ULLAH

ULLAH MOHAMMAD S

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

HENRY BLATORRACA LAW OFFICE

LATORRACA HENRY BRIAN

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

12/28/2016: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Notice of Case Management Conference

12/28/2016: Notice of Case Management Conference

Other -

12/28/2016: Other -

Notice of Ruling

6/2/2017: Notice of Ruling

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

8/2/2017: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Minute Order

6/19/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

7/3/2018: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement

7/25/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

7/26/2018: Case Management Statement

Other -

8/6/2018: Other -

Answer

8/7/2018: Answer

Minute Order

1/15/2019: Minute Order

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

3/25/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Proof of Service by Mail

3/25/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order

4/18/2019: Minute Order

Trial Brief

5/10/2019: Trial Brief

Trial Brief

5/10/2019: Trial Brief

Minute Order

5/16/2019: Minute Order

20 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • Subpoena Duces Tecum and Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Subpoena Duces Tecum and Proof of Service; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 09:08 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/16/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Trial Brief; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Witness List; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
43 More Docket Entries
  • 03/13/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department S27; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • Default Entered; Filed by KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2017
  • Default Entered; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • Other - (Order to Show case hearing)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/28/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: NC060959    Hearing Date: February 20, 2020    Dept: S27

TENTATIVE RULING: grant

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Charles E. Nourrcier and Karen D. Nourrcier (collectively “Plaintiffs”) prevailed following a non-jury trial.

On October 18, 2019, the Court granted judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor against Defendant Mohammad S. Ullah.

Plaintiffs now move for $28,861.50 in reasonable attorney fees.

Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10)(A), attorney fees when authorized by contract are allowable as costs and may be awarded upon a noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(5).

In determining what fees are reasonable, California courts apply the “lodestar” approach. (See, e.g., Holguin v. DISH Network LLC (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1310, 1332.) This inquiry “begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (See PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) From there, the “[t]he lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided.” (Ibid.) Relevant factors include: “(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, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney fees pursuant to their real estate contract as the prevailing party. (LaTorraca, Decl. Ex. 14-1 to 14-12 ¶ 34.)

Plaintiffs seek $28,861.50 in attorney fees.

Although Defendant does not oppose, the Court independently examines the motion to confirm the requested fees are reasonable.

First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s $375 hourly rate is reasonable considering his 40 years of experience. (Id. Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff fails to explain who “Dana L. DiBartelo” is and why her experience justifies a $135 hourly rate. (See id. Ex. 7 and Ex. 8.) Nevertheless, the Court finds this rate reasonable even if she is a paralegal. Plaintiff fails to explain who “SLN” is and why SLN’s experience justifies a $135 hourly rate. (See id. Ex. 12.) Nevertheless, the Court finds this rate reasonable even if SLN is a paralegal.

Next, the Court examines the submitted invoices. (Id. Ex. 2-12.) The stated hours are reasonable given the tasks completed.

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion in its entirety.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees in the amount of $28,861.50.

Plaintiffs are to provide notice of this order.