This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:38:39 (UTC).

DANIEL B SWARTZ VS HAGOP SARGISAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/09/2017 DANIEL B SWARTZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HAGOP SARGISAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are JOHN P. DOYLE and DEIRDRE HILL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4551

  • Filing Date:

    06/09/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOHN P. DOYLE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SWARTZ DANIEL B.

Respondents, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

LEO BETANCOURT INC

REMAX TERRASOL

DOES 1 TO 20

SARGISAN HAGOP

CARAGIO KIMM A.

LEO BETANCOURT INC DBA RE/MAX TERRASOL

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

CARAGIO KIMM A.

LEO BETANCOURT INC DBA RE/MAX TERRASOL

Cross Defendants

MARK 1 REAL ESTATE

HALL CRAIG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

BOYDSTON BRIAN D. ESQ.

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

MILLS HEATHER L. ESQ.

ECOFF LAWRENCE C. ESQ.

POTTER NANCY NICHOLSON

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

5/23/2019: Request for Dismissal

Notice

7/12/2019: Notice

Witness List

7/12/2019: Witness List

Trial Brief

7/12/2019: Trial Brief

Statement of the Case

7/12/2019: Statement of the Case

Exhibit List

7/12/2019: Exhibit List

Minute Order

7/18/2019: Minute Order

Jury Instructions

7/24/2019: Jury Instructions

Minute Order

7/25/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/7/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

1/17/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS OF DEFENDANTS KIMM A. CARAGIO AND RE/MAX TERRASOL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2/8/2018: STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS OF DEFENDANTS KIMM A. CARAGIO AND RE/MAX TERRASOL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF KIMM A. CARAGIO AND RE/MAX TERRASOL FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES; ETC.

2/8/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF KIMM A. CARAGIO AND RE/MAX TERRASOL FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES; ETC.

NOTICE OF LODGING OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

2/8/2018: NOTICE OF LODGING OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Unknown

2/14/2018: Unknown

PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

4/10/2018: PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

DECLARATION OF CRAIG HALL

4/10/2018: DECLARATION OF CRAIG HALL

DECLARATION OF DANIEL B. SWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

4/10/2018: DECLARATION OF DANIEL B. SWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

102 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/15/2019
  • Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Scott M. Bonesteel (Attorney)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/24/2019
  • DocketJury Instructions; Filed by Kimm A. Caragio (Defendant); Surf City Equities Erroneously Sued As Leo Betancourt, Inc (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Leo Betancourt, Inc (Cross-Complainant); Kimm A. Caragio (Cross-Complainant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by Daniel B. Swartz (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
169 More Docket Entries
  • 07/05/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/05/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARJNG

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Daniel B. Swartz (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****4551    Hearing Date: July 27, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: July 27, 2020

Case Name: Swartz v. Sargisian, et al.

Case No.: ****4551

Matter: Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Moving Party: Defendant Hagop Sargisian

Responding Party: Plaintiff Daniel B. Swartz


Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is denied.


Having prevailed at trial, Defendant Hagop Sargisian seeks $153,780.87 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to a certain Residential Purchase Agreement (“RPA”). (Civ. Code ; 1717.)

Plaintiff argues that the RPA’s fee provision does not encompass this matter and that this action instead sought to enforce a Specs Agreement (also known as a “Side Agreement”) having no attorneys’ fees provision. (FAC ¶ 3.)

The RPA’s fee provision states, “In any action, proceeding or arbitration between Buyer and Seller arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Buyer or Seller shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs from the non-prevailing Buyer or Seller, except as provided in paragraph 22A.”

Defendant argues the RPA’s fee provision encompasses this matter because at trial (1) Defendant argued the RPA’s integration clause barred the Specs Agreement and (2) the RPA was used to indicate that contemporaneous execution of the two agreements was required. Defendant primarily relies on Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 759.

While Defendant’s argument is somewhat appealing, the fee provision in Mountain Air is distinguishable: “If any legal action or any other proceeding . . . is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute . . . in connection with any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees . . . .” In Mountain Air, the Court found that while the action was brought to enforce an illegal contract, it could be said the action necessarily required determining the validity of a competing agreement which contained a fee provision. The court found that the action was, therefore, brought “because of an alleged dispute . . . with any provision of the” agreement providing for fees. In contrast, while the RPA’s fee provision here is broad, it is not apparently so broad as to allow for fees simply because an action includes a dispute relating to the RPA. Defendant has failed to cite any authority providing that the phrase “arising out of” within the RPA can encompass such. There are a plethora of cases which indicate this phrase is sufficiently broad so as to encompass tort claims, but such is not the issue here.

Because there is no contract providing for fees in this matter, the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is denied.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LEO BETANCOURT INC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Nancy Nicholson Potter

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MILLS HEATHER LYNN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ECOFF BLUT, LLP - LAWRENCE C. ECOFF