Search

Attributes

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

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

JOHN P. DOYLE

DEIRDRE HILL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SWARTZ DANIEL B.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

LEO BETANCOURT INC

REMAX TERRASOL

DOES 1 TO 20

SARGISAN HAGOP

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.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

MILLS HEATHER L. ESQ.

ECOFF LAWRENCE C. ESQ.

POTTER NANCY NICHOLSON

 

Court Documents

Notice

7/12/2019: Notice

Jury Instructions

7/24/2019: Jury Instructions

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

STIPULATION RE FILING OF CROSS-COMPLAINT BY KIMM CARAGIO AND SURF CITY EQUITIES, ORDER THEREON

5/21/2018: STIPULATION RE FILING OF CROSS-COMPLAINT BY KIMM CARAGIO AND SURF CITY EQUITIES, ORDER THEREON

CIVIL DEPOSIT

7/20/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER, ETC. (ATTACHMENT)

8/13/2018: APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER, ETC. (ATTACHMENT)

Minute Order

9/11/2018: Minute Order

Separate Statement

11/30/2018: Separate Statement

Notice

1/22/2019: Notice

Separate Statement

1/30/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration

1/30/2019: Declaration

Reply

2/8/2019: Reply

COMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

6/9/2017: COMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/5/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

7/17/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

8/23/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

8/23/2017: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

9/5/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

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 MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Scott M. Bonesteel (Attorney)

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/25/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

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

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

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2019
  • DocketExhibit List; Filed by Daniel B. Swartz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
169 More Docket Entries
  • 07/05/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARJNG

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/09/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Daniel B. Swartz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC664551    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.: BC664551

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 represented by Lawyer MILLS HEATHER LYNN