This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 23:22:19 (UTC).

JEHAN REYES VS GEORGE REYES

Case Summary

On 04/27/2017 JEHAN REYES filed an Other lawsuit against GEORGE REYES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LORI ANN FOURNIER, TORRIBIO, JOHN A., MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and MASTER CALENDAR. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6271

  • Filing Date:

    04/27/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LORI ANN FOURNIER

TORRIBIO, JOHN A.

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

MASTER CALENDAR

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

REYES JEHAN

REYES ANGEL

Defendants

REYES MICHELLE

REYES GEORGE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MANSOUR JOHN F. LAW OFFICES OF

Defendant Attorneys

ROBERT A. BARTLETT

BARTLETT ESQ. ROBERT ARTHUR

 

Court Documents

Unknown

4/27/2017: Unknown

Summons

4/27/2017: Summons

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/27/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Unknown

5/3/2017: Unknown

Statement of the Case

10/10/2017: Statement of the Case

Minute Order

10/10/2017: Minute Order

Unknown

10/10/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/6/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

11/28/2017: Minute Order

Other -

11/1/2018: Other -

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

2/21/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Proof of Service by Mail

2/25/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Objection

3/5/2019: Objection

Supplemental Declaration

3/19/2019: Supplemental Declaration

Minute Order

3/26/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/27/2019: Minute Order

Order

5/1/2019: Order

Minute Order

6/10/2019: Minute Order

54 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/09/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by ANGEL REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Order (re: hearing of 5/1/19); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by ANGEL REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department C; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Request for Dismissal (With Prejudice as to Jehan Reyes from Complaint ONLY); Filed by ANGEL REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
98 More Docket Entries
  • 05/03/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by JEHAN REYES (Plaintiff); ANGEL REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by JEHAN REYES (Plaintiff); ANGEL REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (BY SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON 05/02/17 DECLARATION OF DILIGENCE ATTACHED ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by JEHAN REYES (Plaintiff); ANGEL REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Summons; Filed by JEHAN REYES (Plaintiff); ANGEL REYES (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066271    Hearing Date: October 31, 2019    Dept: SEC

REYES v. REYES

CASE NO.: VC066271

HEARING: 10/31/19

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#6

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants GEORGE and MICHELLE REYES’s unopposed motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $7,455.00. CCP §1033.5.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of October 29, 2019.

“If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” (CCP §998(c)(1).)

On March 28, 2019, Defendants served their CCP §998 offer on Plaintiff ANGEL REYES. Plaintiff refused to accept Defendants’ settlement offer, and trial commenced on August 5, 2019. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff ANGEL REYES failed to appear for trial and the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. Defendants are the prevailing parties and are entitled to an award of both pre-and post- CCP §998 costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees. (See Heritage Engineering Construction, Inc. v. City of Industry (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1439-1440.)

When assessing the amount of any attorney’s fee award, courts typically determine what is reasonable through the application of the “lodestar” method. Under the lodestar method, a base amount is calculated from a compilation of (1) time reasonably spent and (2) the reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney. (Serrano v. Priest (“Serrano III”) (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48); (See also Meister v. Regents of University of California (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 437, 448-449 holding that the lodestar method applies to statutory attorney fees award unless the underlying statute provides for another method of calculation).  Normally, a “reasonable” hourly rate is the prevailing rate charged by attorneys of similar skill and experience in the relevant community. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.) That amount may then be adjusted through the consideration of various factors, including “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, and (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Ketchum v. Moses 1132.) The Court is vested with discretion to determine which claimed hours were reasonably spent, and what an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate is. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501); (See also Flannery v. California Highway Patrol (1987) 61 Cal.App.4th 629, 644.) [“We readily acknowledge the discretion of the trial judge to determine the value of professional services rendered in his or her court.”].

Defendants seek an award of $7,455.00 in attorney’s fees, for 21.3 hours of work at the rate of $350.00 per hour. Defendants’ unopposed motion is granted. The Court’s determination is undertaken in the exercise of its discretion to determine whether or not rates or hours are reasonable. (Dover Mobile Estates v. Fiber Form Products, Inc. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1494, 1501.) Where the motion is unopposed, the Court has no reason to believe that the fees and rates sought by Defendants are excessive or unreasonable.