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.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 THROUGH 20
SOUTH BAY TOYOTA INC.
OKOJIE ODION L. ESQ.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
Court documents are not available for this case.
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 37; Ex-Parte Proceedings (Exparte proceeding; Denied) -Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Jerome Brazille (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
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 MOTIONRead MoreRead Less
DocketPLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND EX PARTE MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO VACATE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO ARBITRATION, ETC.Read MoreRead Less
DocketEx-parte Request for Order; Filed by Jerome Brazille (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF RULING PURSUANT TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PROOF OF SERVICE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:03 AM in Department 37; (OSC - No Return of Service; Arbitration - Binding) -Read MoreRead Less
DocketMinute OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order; Filed by South Bay Toyota, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSTIPULATION OF PARTIES TO SUBMIT MATTER TO BINDING ARBITRATION; ORDER THEREONRead MoreRead Less
DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Jerome Brazille (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Req Ent of Def; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Jerome Brazille (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
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
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC359102 Hearing Date: March 03, 2021 Dept: 78
Case Number: BC569102 Hearing Date: March 03, 2021 Dept: 78
john bachsian, et al.;
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.
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.
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
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases