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.
****4551
06/09/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JOHN P. DOYLE
DEIRDRE HILL
SWARTZ DANIEL B.
LEO BETANCOURT INC
REMAX TERRASOL
DOES 1 TO 20
SARGISAN HAGOP
CARAGIO KIMM A.
LEO BETANCOURT INC DBA RE/MAX TERRASOL
MARK 1 REAL ESTATE
HALL CRAIG
BOYDSTON BRIAN D. ESQ.
MILLS HEATHER L. ESQ.
ECOFF LAWRENCE C. ESQ.
POTTER NANCY NICHOLSON
7/12/2019: Notice
7/24/2019: Jury Instructions
4/10/2018: PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
5/21/2018: STIPULATION RE FILING OF CROSS-COMPLAINT BY KIMM CARAGIO AND SURF CITY EQUITIES, ORDER THEREON
7/20/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
8/13/2018: APPLICATION FOR RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER, TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER, ETC. (ATTACHMENT)
9/11/2018: Minute Order
11/30/2018: Separate Statement
1/22/2019: Notice
1/30/2019: Separate Statement
1/30/2019: Declaration
2/8/2019: Reply
6/9/2017: COMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC
7/5/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
7/17/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC
8/23/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
8/23/2017: Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail
9/5/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department 58 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by Scott M. Bonesteel (Attorney)
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 58; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Held
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk
DocketJury Instructions; Filed by Kimm A. Caragio (Defendant); Surf City Equities Erroneously Sued As Leo Betancourt, Inc (Defendant)
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 58; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Leo Betancourt, Inc (Cross-Complainant); Kimm A. Caragio (Cross-Complainant)
DocketMinute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk
DocketExhibit List; Filed by Daniel B. Swartz (Plaintiff)
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARJNG
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk
DocketSUMMONS
DocketCOMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETC
DocketComplaint; Filed by Daniel B. Swartz (Plaintiff)
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner
Case Number: BC664551 Hearing Date: July 27, 2020 Dept: 58
Judge John P. Doyle
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.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases