This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/30/2017 at 12:55:26 (UTC).

THEE AGUILA, INC. VS SANTIAGO ACUNA

Case Summary

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, MASTER CALENDAR, YVONNE T. SANCHEZ and LORI ANN FOURNIER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9422

  • Filing Date:

    08/30/2011

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARGARET M. BERNAL

TORRIBIO, JOHN A.

ROGER ITO

MASTER CALENDAR

YVONNE T. SANCHEZ

LORI ANN FOURNIER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

THEE AGUILA INC.

AGUILA HENRY

Defendants

ERDM INC.

MENESES EVA

FRAGOSO EDGAR

ACUNA SANTIAGO

Others

CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP

GLASSER FREDERICK L. ATTORNEY AT LAW

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MALLEY GUINEVERE M. THE LAW OFFICE OF

THE LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA PUERTAS

Defendant Attorneys

CENTURY LAW GROUP LLP

LAW OFFICES OF BREYON J. DAVIS

WILZIG DAVID J.

ROACH GARY BYRON LAW OFFICES OF

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/29/2017
  • Amended Cross-Complaint (THIRD ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2017
  • Order (FOLLOWING STATUS HEARING ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2017
  • Order (FOLLOWING REMITTITUR IN BC482246 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2017
  • Notice (OF CHANGE OF HEARING DATE ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/03/2017
  • Report-Status Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2016
  • Answer to Second Amended Complaint (DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IN VC064662 NOW CONSOLIDATED WITH VC059422 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2016
  • Request (THAT THE COURT REINSTATE THE SLANDER OF TITLE COA AFTER APPEAL ) Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Notice of Ruling (VC064662 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2016
  • Answer (TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN CASE NO. VC064662 ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/29/2016
  • Second Amended Complaint Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
156 More Docket Entries
  • 01/25/2012
  • Notice of Ruling Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2011
  • Statement-Case Management Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2011
  • Deft's Ntc of Hrng on Demurrer Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2011
  • First Amended Complaint (NO SUMMONS ISSUED ) Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2011
  • Notice (NOTICE OF ENTRY OF RULING ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2011
  • Order (RE HEARING OF OCT. 26, 2011 ) Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2011
  • Deft's Ntc of Hrng on Demurrer Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2011
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2011
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/30/2011
  • Notice-Case Management Conference Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.