This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/06/2020 at 19:39:26 (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 Not Classified By Court.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0959

  • Filing Date:

    12/28/2016

  • Case Status:

    Not Classified By Court

  • 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

Not Classified By Court

ITUARTE ROSA E.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

HENRY BLATORRACA LAW OFFICE

LATORRACA HENRY BRIAN

 

Court Documents

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DEFAULT ENTERED

3/10/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: DEFAULT ENTERED

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

4/23/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS-OTHER

5/29/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MISCELLANEOUS-OTHER

Amended Complaint

7/22/2019: Amended Complaint

Other - - TENTATIVE RULING AND FINAL ORDER

9/12/2019: Other - - TENTATIVE RULING AND FINAL ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-JURY TRIAL)

9/30/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-JURY TRIAL)

Other - - SETTLED STATEMENT FOR OCTOBER 1, 2019

10/2/2019: Other - - SETTLED STATEMENT FOR OCTOBER 1, 2019

Judgment - JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

10/18/2019: Judgment - JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

10/23/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES)

2/20/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES)

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

3/13/2020: Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

Abstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims

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

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-06-19 00:00:00

6/19/2018: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2018-06-19 00:00:00

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 -

Answer -

8/7/2018: Answer -

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

5/16/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/13/2020
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department S27, Mark C. Kim, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketTentative Ruling and Final Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Non Opposition to Motion for Attorney's Fees); Filed by MOHAMMAD S ULLAH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • DocketMotion for Attorney Fees; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2019
  • DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2019
  • DocketMemorandum (of Costs (Worksheet)); Filed by CHARLES E NOURRCIER (Plaintiff); KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
75 More Docket Entries
  • 03/13/2017
  • Docketat 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
  • DocketDefault Entered; Filed by KAREN D NOURRCIER (Plaintiff)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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.