Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/06/2021 at 12:49:14 (UTC).

JEROME BRAZILLE VS SOUTH BAY TOYOTA INC

Case Summary

On 09/25/2006 JEROME BRAZILLE filed a Civil Right - Other Civil Right lawsuit against SOUTH BAY TOYOTA INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JOANNE O'DONNELL. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9102

  • Filing Date:

    09/25/2006

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Civil Right - Other Civil Right

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

JOANNE O'DONNELL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

BRAZILLE JEROME

Defendants

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

SOUTH BAY TOYOTA INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

OKOJIE ODION L. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/30/2007
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 37; Ex-Parte Proceedings (Exparte proceeding; Denied) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2007
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Jerome Brazille (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2007
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2007
  • DocketNOTICE OF RULING PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF THE COURT TO VACATE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO ARBITRATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO BRING SAID MOTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2007
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO VACATE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO ARBITRATION, ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2007
  • DocketEx-parte Request for Order; Filed by Jerome Brazille (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/26/2007
  • DocketNOTICE OF RULING PURSUANT TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF SERVICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2007
  • Docketat 09:03 AM in Department 37; (OSC - No Return of Service; Arbitration - Binding) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2007
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2007
  • DocketStipulation and Order; Filed by South Bay Toyota, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2007
  • DocketSTIPULATION OF PARTIES TO SUBMIT MATTER TO BINDING ARBITRATION; ORDER THEREON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2007
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2006
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jerome Brazille (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2006
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2006
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Req Ent of Def; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2006
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2006
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2006
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Jerome Brazille (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2006
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE OF A RACE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [GOVT. CODE SECTION 12900, ET SEQ.]; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2006
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC359102    Hearing Date: March 03, 2021    Dept: 78


Case Number: BC569102    Hearing Date: March 03, 2021    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

Nigel hudson;

Plaintiff,

vs.

john bachsian, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

BC659102

Hearing Date:

March 3, 2021

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

dEFENDANT jOHN bACHSIAN’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Plaintiff Nigel Hudson’s MOTION TO TAX COSTS

Defendant John Bachsian’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the total amount of $2,210.

Plaintiff Nigel Hudson’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED: The Court strikes all of Bachsian’s costs other than $61.65 fee to file the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

Factual BACKGROUND

The factual background relating to this motion is fully set forth in the Final Statement of Decision re Phase II of Trial issued by the Court on March 2, 2020.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 21, 2021, this Court held, for the second time in response to a Motion for Reconsideration, that Hudson prevailed on the ultimate breach of contract claim and received a favorable jury verdict. Bachsian obtained only an intermediary victory when the Court held on November 14, 2018 that Universal Group and Universal Construction were not alter egos of Bachsian. (Order 11/14/18.) Judgment was not entered in favor of Bachsian, nor was Bachsian awarded any monetary recovery.

On January 22, 2021, this Court found, in the interest of fairness, that the Bachsian may recover attorneys’ fees only as to preparing pleadings and attending the hearing in connection with the Court’s November 14, 2018 Ruling on the alter ego claim. The Court held that it would not award attorneys’ fees for any work prepared for the non-prevailing Defendants, for any work prepared for Bachsian unrelated to the November 8, 2018 hearing, or for any work prepared after November 14, 2020.

The Court continued the instant Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Motion to Tax Costs for the parties to file supplemental pleadings limited to work performed for Bachsian in connection with the November 8, 2018 hearing.

On February 2, 2021, Bachsian filed a Supplemental Declaration in Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

On February 16, 2021, Hudson filed a Supplemental Opposition.

Discussion

Defendant Bachsian moves to recover attorney fees in connection with this action. Plaintiff Hudson has filed a Motion to Tax Costs.

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1032, subdivision (b) [], guarantees prevailing parties in civil litigation awards of the costs expended in the litigation: ‘Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter of right to recover costs in any action or proceeding.’” (Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (“Williams”) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97, 100.).

Bachsian requests $8,364.00 in attorneys’ fees incurred solely for Bachsian, including fees related to this Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. (Supp. Decl., p. 2.) In Opposition, Hudson argues that Bachsian’s requests are beyond the Court’s 1/22/21 Order because “Bachsian asks the Court to reconsider this ruling by asking for fees unrelated to the alter ego hearing, and allegedly incurred as far back as 2017, and then continuing all the way through 2021.” (Supp. Oppo. at p. 2.) Hudson contends that only four entries are eligible under the Court’s ruling: those on 11/6/18 and 11/7/18 totaling $1,615. (Supp. Oppo. at p. 2.)

“It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”¿ (Melnyk v. Robledo¿(1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623.)¿ In exercising its discretion, the court should consider a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in handling the matter, the attention given, the success or failure, and the resulting judgment.¿ (See¿id.)¿¿¿ 

The Court agrees with Hudson. The Court’s 1/22/21 Order limits Bachsian’s attorneys’ fee recovery to fees incurred in connection with the November 8, 2018 hearing on the alter ego issue. However, Bachsian seeks to recover fees for reviewing the Complaint, drafting Answers and responding to discovery as far back as June 2017. (Suppl. Decl., Exh. A.) There is no evidence in the Supplemental Declaration that these 2017 billing entries were specific to the alter ego issue, as previously ordered.

The only billing entries limited to both Bachsian and the alter ego issue are four entries on November 6, 2018 and November 7, 2018 totaling 11.4 hour and $1,615. The Court also finds that Bachsian may recover his attorneys’ fees incurred on January 29, 2021 in connection with preparing the Supplemental Declaration to this Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, totaling 3.5 hours and $595.

Further, the Court strikes all costs requested by Bachsian other than the fee to file the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

Accordingly, Defendant Bachsian’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED in the total amount of $2,210. Plaintiff Hudson’s Motion to Tax Costs is GRANTED: The Court strikes all of Bachsian’s costs other than $61.65 fee to file the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees.

DATED: March 3, 2021

________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where SOUTH BAY TOYOTA INC. is a litigant