CRESCENT PLAZA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION VS SAMUEL TOUMAYAN ET
Case Summary
On 07/15/2014 CRESCENT PLAZA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against SAMUEL TOUMAYAN ET. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****1586
-
Filing Date:
07/15/2014
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Party Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner
CRESCENT PLAZA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Defendants and Respondents
DOES 1 THROUGH 50
PIEPLOW JOHN
TOUMAYAN GUADALUPE
TOUMAYAN SAMUEL
VAYNER DAVID
Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs
TOUMAYAN GUADALUPE
VAYNER DAVID
Defendants and Cross Defendants
PIEPLOW JOHN
TOUMAYAN SAMUEL
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys
DAVID HOFFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
HOFFMAN DAVID (LAW OFFICES OF) APC
Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys
LANE DOMINICK V.
KOCZARA RYAN T. ESQ
Court Documents
7/15/2014: SUMMONS
10/6/2014: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS
10/6/2014: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS (RE DAVID VAYNER)
5/29/2015: Unknown
5/29/2015: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
12/1/2015: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES]
12/24/2015: NOTICE OF LIMITED ASSOCIATION OF COUNSEL
12/24/2015: DECLARATION OF BARRY L. COHEN FILED IN SUPPORT OF SAMUEL TOUMAYAN AND GUADALUPE TOUMAYAN?S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED CROSSCOMPLAINT
1/25/2016: CROSS COMPLAINT - PERS. INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE, WRONG DEATH (2 PAGES)
1/29/2016: SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1/29/2016: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: STIPULATION RE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
4/15/2016: ORDER AND STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL, FSC [AND RELATED MOTION/DISCOVERY DATES]
4/21/2016: Unknown
4/21/2016: DAVID VAYNER'S ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMUEL TOUMAYAN AND GUADALUPE TOUMAYAN
9/8/2016: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
9/8/2016: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
12/19/2016: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
7/31/2017: Minute Order
Docket Entries
- 02/25/2016
-
Answer to Cross-Complaint Filed by Atty for Plaintiff and Cross-Deft
- 01/29/2016
-
Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
- 01/29/2016
-
Notice (OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE: STIPULATION RE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
- 01/25/2016
-
Cross-complaint Filed by Attorney for Cross-Complainant
- 01/13/2016
-
Stipulation and Order (RE FIRST AMENDED CROSS COMPLAINT ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
- 12/24/2015
-
Association of Attorney (limited ) Filed by Cross-Complainant
- 12/24/2015
-
Declaration (OF BARRY L. COHEN ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl
- 12/24/2015
-
Motion for Leave Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl
- 12/01/2015
-
Stip & Order-Continue Trial,FSC-PI (NEW DATES 5/17/16 3/3/16 ) Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
- 07/14/2015
-
Notice of Change of Address Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
- 05/29/2015
-
Answer to Complaint Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent
- 05/29/2015
-
Cross-complaint Filed by Attorney for Cross-Complainant
- 05/29/2015
-
Receipt Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
- 10/06/2014
-
Notice of Change of Address Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
- 10/06/2014
-
Proof-Service/Summons Filed by Attorney for Pltf/Petnr
- 07/15/2014
-
Complaint
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC551586 Hearing Date: January 15, 2020 Dept: P
Tentative Ruling
Crescent Plaza Homeowners Assn. v. Toumayan et al. Case No. BC551586
Cross-Complainants’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to Terms of Settlement (UNOPPOSED)
Hearing Date: 1/15/2020
Cross-complainants Samuel and Guadalupe Toumayan (“the Toumayans”) alleged cross-defendant Crescent Plaza Homeowners Association (CPHOA) failed to prevent or remedy water intrusions into their residence. The parties reached a settlement agreement, under which CPHOA would pay the Toumayans $20,000 in addition to all reasonable attorney’s fees attributable to litigation against CPHOA only (fees attributable to the other cross-defendants are not to be paid by CPHOA).
“A court may not rubber stamp a request for attorney’s fees but must determine the number of hours reasonably expended.” Donahue v. Donahue (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 259, 271.
The Toumayans seek 13 hours of fees billed at hourly rates between $290.00 and $350.00 (a total of $4,072.00) for work performed by Cohen & Cohen, LLP between July 2014 and September 2016. This is reasonable, and the hours are supported by the declaration of attorney Barry Cohen.
The Toumayans seek $26,260 for work performed by successor counsel Wolk & Levine between December 2016 and June 2019. The claimed fees are not supported by a declaration from a Wolk & Levine attorney, nor anyone else. The Toumayans provide only Wolk & Levine’s billing in support of the claimed fees. Additionally, some bills state they were paid from a retainer; some bills request payment. It is unclear what amounts the Toumayans actually paid. This is insufficient to substantiate the claimed fees, and the court requires additional evidence before fees can be awarded.
Finally, the Toumayans seek $6,000 in fees for time spent by current counsel Steven L. Rodriguez to prepare this motion. The settlement agreement specifically excludes fees incurred after March 27, 2019. Rodriguez decl., exh. 1-1 at (2). As the settlement was reached in June 2019, and this motion was drafted therafter, these fees are not recoverable.
GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs are awarded $4,072 in attorney’s fees for the Cohen & Cohen hours. The Rodriguez fees are denied.
The court will reconsider additional evidence regarding the Wolk & Levine fees upon request.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases