THEE AGUILA INC VS CALIFORNIA EMINENT DOMAIN LAW GROUP ET AL
Case Summary
On 01/06/2014 THEE AGUILA INC filed a Property - Commercial Eviction lawsuit against CALIFORNIA EMINENT DOMAIN LAW GROUP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****2354
-
Filing Date:
01/06/2014
-
Case Status:
Disposed - Judgment Entered
-
Court:
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
RAFAEL A. ONGKEKO
Party Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner
THEE AGUILA INC.
Defendants and Respondents
CALIFORNIA EMINENT DOMAIN LAW GROUP
DOES 1 THROUGH 10
FRAGOSO EDGAR
MANESES EVA
CENTURY LAW GROUP
CONNOLLY TERRENCE M. (DOE 2)
PEDERSEN CHRIS (DOE 1)
CONNOLLY TERRENCE M. DOE 2
PEDERSEN CHRIS DOE 1
Cross Defendant
AGUILA HENRY
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney
MALLEY GUINEVERE M.
Defendant and Respondent Attorney
LARSON KAREN A. ESQ.
Court Documents
1/11/2018: OBJECTION OF HENRY AGUILA AND THEE AGUILA INC'S TO THE PROPOSED JUDGMENTS
5/24/2018: Minute Order -
1/6/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF NON-SERVICE/FILING OF ANY OPPOSITION TO THEIR MOTION FOR POST APPEAL FEES/COSTS
7/22/2016: RESPONSE OF THEE AGUILA INC. TO THE REPLY OF DEFENDANT?S CHRIS PEDERSEN AND TERRENCE CONNOLLY TO THE ANTI-SLAPP MOTION
8/11/2016: NOTICE OF RULING ON DEFENDANTS? PEDERSEN AND CONNOLLY ANTI-SLAPP MOTION ETC.
8/26/2016: DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SUPPORTING THEIR MOTION TO SEVER/BIFURCATE
9/21/2016: JOINT NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE PRESENTLY SCHEDULED ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES FROM OCTOBER 3, 2016 TO OCTOBER 21, 2016
3/21/2017: DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO ABSENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE FOR ORDER EXCLUDING EXPERT EVIDENCE AT BENCH TRIAL
3/29/2017: THEE AGUILA INC.?S EXHIBIT LIST
9/11/2017: THEE AGUILA INC.'S AND HENRY AGUILA'S MOTION FOR RECOSIDERATION OF THE RULING ON THE APRIL 13& 44, 2017 BENCH TRIAL AFTER BIFURICATION
10/23/2017: DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENT TO THEIR OPPOSITION TO THEE AGUILA'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, REQUESTING THAT COURT STRIKE THE MOTION BASED ON ATTORNEY'S STATE BAR SUSPENSION
Docket Entries
- 03/12/2020
-
DocketNotice (Notice of Entry Final Judgment Fees and Costs on Appeal); Filed by Century Law Group (Defendant)
- 02/27/2020
-
Docketat 3:30 PM in Department 73; Court Order
- 02/27/2020
-
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order Re: Proposed Order on Defendants' Motion Fees an...)); Filed by Clerk
- 02/27/2020
-
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Proposed Order on Defendants' Motion Fees an...) of 02/27/2020); Filed by Clerk
- 02/27/2020
-
DocketOrder (Proposed Order on Defendants' Motion Fees and Costs on Appeal); Filed by Century Law Group (Defendant)
- 02/27/2020
-
DocketJudgment (Proposed Final Judgment on Fees and Costs on Appeal); Filed by Century Law Group (Defendant)
- 02/21/2020
-
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 73; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReLodging of Proposed Order) - Held
- 02/21/2020
-
DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Lodging of Proposed Order)); Filed by Clerk
- 02/14/2020
-
DocketNotice (of Ruling on Defendants' Motion Fees Appeal); Filed by Century Law Group (Defendant)
- 02/05/2020
-
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 73; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees ((Res ID3317)) - Held - Motion Granted
- 02/20/2014
-
DocketNOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE
- 01/08/2014
-
DocketFirst Amended Complaint; Filed by Thee Aguila Inc. (Plaintiff)
- 01/08/2014
-
DocketPartial Dismissal (with Prejudice); Filed by Thee Aguila Inc. (Plaintiff)
- 01/08/2014
-
DocketFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC
- 01/08/2014
-
DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
- 01/06/2014
-
DocketSUMMONS
- 01/06/2014
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by Thee Aguila Inc. (Plaintiff)
- 01/06/2014
-
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
- 01/06/2014
-
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC
- 12/29/1961
-
DocketDeclaration; Filed by Edgar Fragoso (Defendant); Eva Maneses (Defendant)
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC532354 Hearing Date: February 05, 2020 Dept: 73
2/5/20
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
THEE AGUILA, INC. v. CALIFORNIA EMINENT DOMAIN LAW GROUP, et al.
(BC532354)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES ON APPEAL
Moving parties: Defendants Edgar Fragoso, Eva Meneses, dba El Parral
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Fragoso and Meneses’ unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs on appeal is GRANTED as prayed in the amount of $60,219.65, payable to defendants Edgar Fragoso and Eva Meneses and their counsel Century Law Group (CLG) and against Plaintiff Thee Aguila Inc.
Discussion
Following the remittitur in this matter on 9/3/19, on 9/18/19 moving parties filed a memorandum of costs on appeal. On 10/10/19 moving parties filed the instant motion for attorney fees.
Defendants Fragoso and Meneses request $60,219.65 in attorney fees and costs as the prevailing parties on appeal. This amount breaks down as follows:
· $42,300 in attorney fees
· $10,575 (a 1.25 multiplier)
· $ 3,600.00 for the fee motion
· $ 3,744.65 in costs
$60,219.65
Fee entitlement
The court refers to a previous fee award regarding the moving parties’ entitlement to attorney fees.
Lodestar analysis
Hourly rate. The court is cognizant of its previous fee award in this case based on an hourly rate of of $450 per hour. That hourly rate is what moving parties request; it remains within the reasonable range here for the appellate work and is more than reasonable.
Hours. Counsel has adequately supported the 94 hours expended for the appeal and 8 hours for the fee motion.
Lodestar. The lodestar is based on 102 hours @ $450 per hour for a total of $45,900.
Multiplier. The court agrees with moving parties that a multiplier is appropriate given the complexities of the appeal and the complete success the El Parral defendants achieved resulting in a published opinion. The court finds that a multiplier of 1.25 is appropriately applied on the 94 hours.
Costs : Awarded as prayed in the amount of $3,744.65.
Moving parties to e-file a proposed order and give notice of ruling.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases