On 03/04/2010 STEPHEN H PILLMAN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against WHITTLEY ARMS COOPERATIVE, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ROSS KLEIN and ROY L. PAUL. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ROY L. PAUL
PILLMAN STEPHEN H.
WHITTLEY ARMS ASSOCIATION INC.
WHITTLEY ARMS COOPERATIVE INC.
MUNCY ELBERT W. JR.
TREDWAYM LUMSDAINE & DOYLE LLC(ROYJIMENEZ
CONSUMER ACTION LAW (YELENA GUREVICH)
EDWARD C IP AND ASSOC
THE JUDGE LAW FIRM A.L.C.
BURNS SCHALDENBRAND & RODRIGUEZ
SLAUGHTER & REAGAN LLP
Court documents are not available for this case.
Notice of Ruling (PLNTF PILLMANL TAKI 2-14-17 NTC OF RULING ( RE GRANTING DEFT MO TO W.DRAW) ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Order (ORDER GRANTING ATTYS MTN TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL ) Filed by Former Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (FILED ON BEHALF OF PLTF, STEPHEN H. PILLMAN'S ATTORNEY OF RECORD, YELENA GUREVICH ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (IN SUPPORT OF ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Motion (PLTNS MTN TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT; CORRECTION OF GRANT DEED; ATTY FEES AND COSTS; DECL OF STEPHAN PILLMAN; PROPOSED ORDER ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Related Cases (DEFT - WHITLEY ARMS ASSOC NTC OF RELATED CASE 16K12933 WHITLEY VS PILLMAN DEPT 77 MOSK 10/24/16 16K13172 WHITLEY VS PILLMAN 10-24-16) Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Ord-Appt Apprv Rptr as Rptr protem (SUZANNE ONUKI CSR: 13734 ) Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Reply (PLTF - PILLMAN ; TORI TAKI PLNTF PILLMAN'S REPLY TODEFT WHI TLEY ARMS ASSOC INC'S OPP TO PLTF' S MO TO CONSOL NC043448 AND NC060350 11-22-16) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney (PLNTF- STEPHEN PILLMAN SUB OF ATTY PLNTF STEPHEN PILLMAN SUBS OUT TREDWAY LUMSDAINE AND SUBS IN YELENA GUREVICH IF CONSUMER ACTION LAW GRP) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Answer to First Amended Complaint (OF WHITTLEY ARMS COOPERATIVE,INC. AND WHITTLEY ARMS ASSOCIATION, INC. ) Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (SERVED _ WHITTLEY ARMS COOPERATIVE INC. RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEFECTIVE: THE LAST NAME OF PERSON SERVED ARE NOT IDENTIFIED. ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service (SERVED - WHITTLEY ARMS ASSOC.,INC. RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DEFECTIVE: THE LAST NAME & TITLE OF PERSON SERVED IS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED. ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed (RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
First Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Continuance (OF CMC. SENT TO 88C ON 8/16/10) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (SERVED - WHITTLEY ARMS COOPERATIVE INC. ) Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Summons Filed Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: NC043448 Hearing Date: September 15, 2020 Dept: S27
Plaintiff, Stephen H. Pillman filed this action against Defendants, Whittley Arms Cooperative, Inc. and Whittley Arms Association, Inc. (“WAA”) for breach of settlement. The Court granted judgment in favor of WAA on 6/21/17. Plaintiff appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals issued its Remittitur on 1/31/20; the Remittitur included an express statement that WAA was to recover its attorneys’ fees.
Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
WAA moves to recover its attorneys’ fees incurred on appeal, as well as fees incurred in connection with this motion for attorneys’ fees. It seeks to recover fees in the total amount of $21,177.50. It supports its motion with the declaration of its attorney, Steven R. Napoles.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s right to recover fees, but does argue the amount sought is unreasonable. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges:
13.7 hours to review Plaintiff’s opening appellate brief;
7.5 hours to prepare for oral argument;
4.8 hours to appear at the hearing (which was limited to 20 minutes of argument).
The entries re: reviewing Plaintiff’s opening brief were dated 1/17/19, 1/22/19, 1/24/19, 2/20/19, 3/07/19, 3/12/19, 3/13/19, 3/15/19, and 3/27/19. The entries are detailed, and are not simply a catalogue of time spent reviewing the brief. By way of example, on 1/17/19, Counsel conducted an initial review of the brief and corresponded with his client regarding the review. On 1/24/19, Counsel had a telephone conversation with P. Smiley re: the brief. On 2/20/19, Counsel reviewed and confirmed the opening brief and cross-references to the record. On 3/07/19 and 3/12/19, Counsel simply reviewed the brief; however, on 3/13/19, Counsel reviewed the arguments and authorities cited. In light of the detail provided, the Court is inclined to find the time both reasonably and actually incurred.
Notably, Plaintiff also argues the time is unreasonable because Counsel only spent .3 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s reply brief. If anything, this tends to support the conclusion that the billing is accurate, and not padded. It makes sense to spend less time reviewing a reply brief than an opening brief, because (a) there is no written response to a reply brief, and (b) a reply brief often merely re-states the opening arguments, leaving nothing to meaningfully review.
Plaintiff also challenges the claimed 7.5 hours to prepare for oral argument. These entries are found on 9/30/19, 10/02/19, 10/03/19, and 10/04/19. Appellate argument took place on 10/04/19. The Court understands that argument itself was limited to 20 minutes. It does, however, appear that the issues to be argued were complex, as the Order issued by the Court of Appeals was 18 pages long. The Court notes that it can sometimes take longer to prepare to address complex issues in a small and finite amount of time, in comparison to having an extended duration in which to do so. The Court is not inclined to reduce this time.
Plaintiff’s final challenge is to the claimed 4.8 hours to attend oral argument. Again, Plaintiff notes that the argument itself was 20 minutes long. Counsel is located in Irvine. Argument was in the Second District, which is located in downtown Los Angeles. The Court does not know what time argument took place. Assuming travel in one direction occurred during rush hour, it could have easily been over two hours to travel in one direction, plus an hour in the other direction. Leaving time to park, get through security, and arrive early enough to ensure being on time, then adding time to exit the courthouse, get back to parking, and get back to the office, could easily result in a total of 4.8 hours spent in connection with attending the argument. The request to reduce this time is therefore also denied.
The motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in full.
Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at email@example.com indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases