On 08/30/2011 THEE AGUILA, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against SANTIAGO ACUNA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARGARET M. BERNAL, TORRIBIO, JOHN A., ROGER ITO, YVONNE T. SANCHEZ, LORI ANN FOURNIER and JOHN A. TORRIBIO. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
****9422
08/30/2011
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Norwalk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MARGARET M. BERNAL
TORRIBIO, JOHN A.
ROGER ITO
YVONNE T. SANCHEZ
LORI ANN FOURNIER
JOHN A. TORRIBIO
THEE AGUILA INC.
AGUILA HENRY
CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
WLA LEGAL SERVICES INC.
IPSWICH SHELLFISH CO. INC.
INLAND FRESH SEAFOOD CORP OF AMERICA INC.
MORTILLARO LOBSTER INC.
LAW OFFICES OF BREYON DAVIS
GLASSER FREDERICK L. ATTORNEY AT LAW
ERDM INC.
MENESES EVA
FRAGOSO EDGAR
ACUNA SANTIAGO
AGUILA HENRY
CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP
MALLEY GUINEVERE M. THE LAW OFFICE OF
THE LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA PUERTAS
GLASSER FREDERICK L. ATTORNEY AT LAW
NONG JULIE
LAW OFFICES OF BREYON J. DAVIS
WILZIG DAVID J.
ROACH GARY BYRON LAW OFFICES OF
WLA LEGAL SERVICES INC.
LARSON KAREN ANN
5/24/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice
8/24/2017: Minute Order
10/11/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration
10/19/2017: Minute Order
10/26/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Miscellaneous-Other
10/31/2017: Minute Order
11/2/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Motion in Limine
11/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Miscellaneous-Other
11/8/2017: Exhibit List
11/15/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Request
1/31/2018: Minute Order
3/12/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Miscellaneous-Other
3/28/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Miscellaneous-Other
9/17/2018: Motion for Reconsideration
1/9/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
10/7/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION CORRECTED ACUNA'S OPP TO AGUILA MTN TAX COSTS
2/19/2020: Appeal Document - APPEAL DOCUMENT NOA: 08/01/19 B299725- ORDER OF CONSOLIDATION
10/7/2020: Appeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal - APPEAL - NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL 8/1, 8/1 & 8/1/19 B299725 SUPPLEMENTAL
DocketAppeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 2 Volumes Certified (for Notice of Appeal, filed 8/1/19; Supplemental) (see also BC482246 & VC063598); Filed by Clerk
DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Century Law Group, LLP (Claimant)
DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by Century Law Group, LLP (Claimant)
DocketAbstract of Judgment - Civil and Small Claims; Filed by ERDM, INC. (Defendant)
DocketMemorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgment of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest; Filed by Century Law Group, LLP (Claimant)
DocketAppeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal (8/1, 8/1 & 8/1/19 B299725 SUPPLEMENTAL); Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice of Limited Scope Representation; Filed by CENTURY LAW GROUP, LLP (Attorney)
DocketAppeal - Original Clerk's Transcript 13 Volumes Certified (for 3 Notices of Appeal, filed under BC482246 {"U"}, VC05954 & VC063598); Filed by Clerk
DocketAppeal - Notice of Fees Due for Clerk's Transcript on Appeal (8/1/19 B299725); Filed by Clerk
DocketJudgment (FINAL JUDGMENT RE FEES CLAIMED BY THEE AGUILA, INC. ON CONSOLIDATED MATTER RE CASE NO. VC064662); Filed by Thee Aguila, Inc. (Plaintiff)
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Thee Aguila, Inc. (Plaintiff)
DocketDeft's Ntc of Hrng on Demurrer; Filed by Santiago Acuna (Defendant); ERDM, INC. (Defendant); EDGAR FRAGOSO (Defendant) et al.
DocketFirst Amended Complaint
DocketNotice; Filed by Defendant
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department C; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (Hearing on Demurrer; Demurrer sustained with leave) -
DocketOrder; Filed by Court
DocketDeft's Ntc of Hrng on Demurrer; Filed by Santiago Acuna (Defendant); ERDM, INC. (Defendant); EDGAR FRAGOSO (Defendant) et al.
DocketSummons; Filed by null
DocketComplaint; Filed by Thee Aguila, Inc. (Plaintiff)
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
Case Number: VC059422 Hearing Date: January 17, 2020 Dept: SEG
THEE AGUILA, INC. v. ERDM, INC. ET AL
CASE NO.: VC059422
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY ERDM, INC., ET AL, MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES FILED BY THEE AGUILA, INC., MOTION TO TAX COSTS FILED BY THEE AGUILA, INC.
EDRM Fees
ERDM request for attorney fees and the opposing papers have been read and considered by the Court. The request for fees is granted en toto.
ERDM prevailed on 3 of 5 lawsuits and did not prevail in the other 2. Based on this Court’s deep familiarity with these lawsuits there is no realistic way to apportion fees among the 5 lawsuits. Discovery, pretrial motions, motions in limine, witnesses and evidence were inextricably interconnected.
ERDM Costs
The Thee Aguila motion to tax costs is ruled on as follows: with the exception of filing fees, there is no realistic way to apportion costs as noted above. Filing fees are stricken as to two cases.
Thee Aguila Fees
This analysis applies to both fee motions.
Thee Aguila fees are granted en toto. These were complicated and inextricably linked matters. The Court adopts its statement of not apportioning fees as stated under ERDM fees award. Counsel argues there are no records to support the fee request. The Court notes that ERDM spent $1,140.74 in fees before the lode star was applied. The fee request is eminently reasonable in that it is $300,000.00 less than ERDM’s.
Ms. Malley performed at a very high level throughout all of the proceedings. She obtained an excellent result considering the difficult issues. The Court paraphases Ribbens cited by ERDM. This Court is “exhaustively familiar with the scope, history and complexity of this litigation, as well as the time necessarily …involved …the Court has closely observed the performance of (counsel-my word) during the long pendency of this action and is fully aware of the degree of success.” Ribbens International S.A. de C.V. 47 Fed Supp 2d at 1128.
This Court also notes that ERDM, in its own motion argued for fees and lodestar in pursuit of litigation “including hours reasonably spent on legal theories or arguments that ultimately prove unsuccessful.” Citations omitted ERDM motion page 7.
The Court finds the motion timely. Parenthetically the Court reviewed the billing records for ERDM and notes that some billing was assigned to specific cases and in other instances billing was generic. Yet, there was just a request for an order for all fees incurred. Yet, ERDM did not make any effort to allocate these fees. In two of 5 cases ERDM is not entitled to fees, but for the reasons stated above each side is granted fees as requested.