This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/16/2019 at 00:56:10 (UTC).

CAROLINE S LEE VS JONG HAN LEE ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/07/2018 CAROLINE S LEE filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JONG HAN LEE. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are BARBARA M. SCHEPER and SAMANTHA JESSNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7147

  • Filing Date:

    03/07/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

SAMANTHA JESSNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Appellant

LEE CAROLINE S.

Respondents and Defendants

LEE JONG HAN

BOW TIE REALTY AND INVESTMENT INC.

UNITED ESCROW CO.

KO TRACY

DOES 1 TO 25

Not Classified By Court

TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

JEFFRIES FRANKLIN ATTORNEY AT LAW

JEFFRIES FRANKLIN ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

BIGGINS CHAD ESQ.

YI MICHAEL Y. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/12/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/12/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/12/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

4/26/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

6/5/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

MEMO COSTS SUMMARY

6/11/2018: MEMO COSTS SUMMARY

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO CCP ? 387 OR FOR AN O.S.C. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE OF COURT TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AND A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTERIM

6/29/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO CCP ? 387 OR FOR AN O.S.C. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE OF COURT TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AND A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTERIM

ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OR FOR AN O.S.C. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE OF COURT TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AND A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTERIM

6/29/2018: ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE OR FOR AN O.S.C. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY LEAVE OF COURT TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AND A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTERIM

Minute Order

6/29/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING

7/6/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. QUANTUM MERUIT 3. FRAUD

7/17/2018: COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT 2. QUANTUM MERUIT 3. FRAUD

Minute Order

7/17/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING ON OSC RE INTERVENTION AND OSC RE SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL, FOR FAILING TO APPEAR AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

7/20/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON OSC RE INTERVENTION AND OSC RE SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL, FOR FAILING TO APPEAR AT THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF FROM DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT, TRACY KO, ENTERED 1)UE TO ATTORNEY'S INADVERTENCE AND MISTAKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; ATTORNEY AFF

7/30/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR MANDATORY RELIEF FROM DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT, TRACY KO, ENTERED 1)UE TO ATTORNEY'S INADVERTENCE AND MISTAKE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; ATTORNEY AFF

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT; IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR MANDATORY RELIEF FROM DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT, UNITED ESCROW, ENTERED DUE TO ATTORNEY'S

7/30/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND SET ASIDE DEFAULT; IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR MANDATORY RELIEF FROM DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT, UNITED ESCROW, ENTERED DUE TO ATTORNEY'S

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/6/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RELIEF FROM DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT [UNITED ESCROW AND TRACY KO]

8/14/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT AND TO SET ASIDE CLERK'S ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND MANDATORY RELIEF FROM DEFAULT OF DEFENDANT [UNITED ESCROW AND TRACY KO]

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

101 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/29/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (AMENDED); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2019
  • Appeal - Ntc Designating Record of Appeal APP-003/010/103 ("R"); Filed by Caroline S. Lee (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Appellate Order Dismissing Appeal (NOA:03/26/19 B297147); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Notice of Default; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (for Notice of Appeal, filed 3/26/19 ("R")); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/24/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Default Issued; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Appeal - Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal (for Notice of Appeal, filed 3/26/19); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • at 08:45 AM in Department 1, Samantha Jessner, Presiding; Ex-Parte Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 86; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (FOR ORDER TO ALLOW NOTICE OF APPEAL OF RULING ON MOTION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AND SANCTIONS) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (NOTICE OF AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO ALLOW NOTICE OF APPEAL OF RULING ON MOTION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AND SANCTIONS); Filed by Caroline S. Lee (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
157 More Docket Entries
  • 03/14/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • COMPLAINT-CONTRACT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/07/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC697147    Hearing Date: April 7, 2021    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Bow Tie Realty & Investment, Inc.

OPPOSITION: None Submitted

Intervenor Bow Tie Realty & Investment, Inc. (“Bowtie”) declares that they prevailed on appeal and thus should be awarded $48,327.50 in fees. Caroline S. Lee’s (“Lee”) appeal has been dismissed. (Nov. 5 Remittitur.) The crux of this matter is that Lee alleged that Bowtie filled out a listing agreement to have a 6% commission, which she had not agreed upon. Bowtie intervened because Lee dismissed them from the case after she obtained the escrow company’s default.

Standard: CRC Rule 8.278 provides that a party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case is entitled to costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).) “The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal.” (Id., rule 8.278(a)(2); underscore added.) “Unless the court orders otherwise, an award of costs neither includes attorney’s fees on appeal nor precludes a party from seeking them under rule 3.1702.” (Id., rule 8.278(d)(2).) CRC Rule 3.1702 authorizes a party to file a motion to claim attorney’s fees on appeal under a statute or contract when the court determines entitlement to fees, the amount of fees, or both. (Id., rule 3.1702(a), (c).)1)

GRANTED

Bowtie requests $48,327.50 in attorney’s fees. (74.35 hr. x $650 rate.) In their reply, Bowtie requests compensation for an additional six hours spent on this case: a total of $52,227.5. (80.35 hr. x $650 rate.)

Timeliness: This motion is timely. A notice of motion to claim attorney’s fees on appeal made under a statute or contract requiring the court to determine entitlement to fees must be served and filed within the time for serving and filing the memorandum of costs under rule 8.278(c)(1) [i.e., 40 days after the remittitur is issued]. (CRC Rule 3.1702(c).) Here, the remittitur was issued on Nov. 5, and this motion was filed on Dec. 15, within 40 days.

Entitlement to Fees: Here, the listing agreement between Bowtie and Lee contains an attorney’s fee provision. Bowtie prevailed because Lee’s appeal was dismissed. Whether the requested fees are reasonable is analyzed using the lodestar, the number of hours reasonably spent on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.

In 2019, in the underlying judgment, this court awarded Bowtie’s Counsel’s, Chad Biggins (“Biggins”), fees at a $550 hourly rate. Now, Biggins requests a $650 hourly rate because he now has twenty years as a practicing attorney. (Id. at ¶ 2.) Biggins declares that in his twenty years of practice, he has never encountered a litigant like Lee, one who failed to follow the rules and, as a result, had her appeal dismissed. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Biggins has also provided an itemized list of the hours he spent on the appeal. (Id. at ¶5.)

Based on the Court’s own experience and knowledge, it finds that the requested hourly rate of $650 is reasonable. As this motion is unopposed, Lee has made no challenge regarding the number of hours spent on the appeal. The Court notes that it will award Biggins five additional hours (spent on preparing an opposition to Lee’s Motion for Rehearing) but will not award him the one hour he spent preparing a reply.

Thus, Bowtie will be awarded a total of $51,577.50. (79.35 hr. x $650 rate.)

Conclusion: Bowtie’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED for $51,577.50.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Bow Tie Realty and Investment, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where UNITED ESCROW CO. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases where TEST PARTY FOR TRUST CONVERSION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BIGGINS CHAD ESQ.