This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/11/2019 at 09:05:40 (UTC).

JHM VENTURES VS CAVALIER SPORTSWEAR INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/26/2017 JHM VENTURES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CAVALIER SPORTSWEAR INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is DAVID SOTELO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1286

  • Filing Date:

    10/26/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

DAVID SOTELO

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

JHM VENTURES

VENTURES JHM

Defendants and Respondents

DAHAN EYAL A.

DOES 1-10

CAVALIER SPORTSWEAR INC.

CAVALIER INC.

CAVALIER APPAREL INC.

CAVALIER CLOSEOUTS INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

LEVATOLAW LLP

WEISSKOPF STEPHEN DANIEL ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

LAW OFFICE OF AVIEL DAHAN

WOOLF CHAIM JACOB ESQ.

DAHAN AVIEL ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

1/12/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/12/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/14/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

8/3/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

NOTICE RE: RESCHEDULING OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

8/10/2018: NOTICE RE: RESCHEDULING OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

9/17/2018: ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL?CIVIL

Minute Order

9/17/2018: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

10/17/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Minute Order

11/1/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

1/31/2019: Minute Order

Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

3/19/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Minute Order

5/23/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/3/2019: Minute Order

Unknown

2/6/2018: Unknown

Unknown

2/6/2018: Unknown

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/8/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

SUMMONS

10/27/2017: SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

10/26/2017: PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

10 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/04/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 40; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 40; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Non-Jury Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 40; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by JHM Ventures (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • STIPULATION AND ORDER; Filed by Eyal A. Dahan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by JHM Ventures (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
30 More Docket Entries
  • 11/28/2017
  • DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/28/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Cavalier Sportswear, Inc. (Defendant); Eyal A. Dahan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/08/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2017
  • Summons; Filed by JHM Ventures (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by JHM Ventures (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2017
  • PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC681286    Hearing Date: September 02, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Dahan and Cavalier Closeouts, Inc.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff JHM Ventures

Defendants’ counsels Aviel Dahan (“Aviel”), brother of defendant Eyal Dahan, and Chaim Woolf request a total of $151,120 in attorneys’ fees.

Judicial Notice: Defendants request the Court will take judicial notice of the Fees Matrix pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(h), matters not reasonably subject to dispute.

Standard: Pursuant to section 1717(a), in any action “on a contract,” where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs incurred to enforce the contract shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, the party determined to be the party prevailing on the contract is entitled reasonable attorney’s fees, which shall be fixed by the court as an element of the costs of suit.

Analysis: The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. . . . The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on consideration of factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.

Defendants have provided the billing records of their counsels:

Aviel Dahan: $350/per hr x 99.2 hr= $34,720

Chaim Woolf: $550 x 215.3=$118,415

Plaintiff objects to Aviel’s fee request on the ground that he represented Eyal, his brother, and never billed him for that time.

Plaintiff objects to Woolf’s fee request on the ground that he charged Defendants a discounted $300 rate but is now requesting $550.

Finally, Plaintiff argues that since only one of the three contracts contained an attorneys’ fee provision, the amount of fees requested should be apportioned.

Aviel: As to Counsel Aviel, the fact that he did not bill his brother for his services is not determinative. (See Chacon v. Litke (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1260 [stating that “[t]he reasonable market value of the attorney's services is the measure of a reasonable hourly rate. This standard applies regardless of whether the attorneys claiming fees charge nothing for their services, charge at below-market or discounted rates, represent the client on a straight contingent fee basis, or are in-house counsel.”] However, the Court finds that a reduction in Aviel’s hourly rate is appropriate, considering that counsel Aviel only had two years of experience at the time he litigated the matter. The Court finds that a $250 hourly rate is appropriate. This hourly rate results in a the total fees requested reduced from $32,700 to $24,800.

Woolf: Counsel is correct that a fee award may be based on an hourly rate that exceeds the rate billed. “There is no requirement that the reasonable market rate mirror the actual rate billed.” Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 691, 701. Although Woolf is not limited to the $300 hourly rate he charged to Defendants, the Court finds that his $550 hourly rate is excessive in the context of this action. The bench trial and the underlying action were not particularly complex. Based on the Court’s experience with this matter and its own familiarity with the market for this type of work, the Court concludes that $400 is an appropriate hourly rate for Woolf.

Reducing Woolf’s hourly rate to $400 results in a reduction of the total fees requested from $118,400 to $86,120.

Apportionment: Plaintiff argues that the dispute was about three business deals between the parties. It is undisputed that there was a written agreement between the parties to split the profits from the sale of Derion jeans and that the agreement contained an attorneys’ fees provision. At trial, Plaintiff argued that there were two other written agreements between the parties: one for children’s clothes and deal to purchase auction goods. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to establish that there was a children’s clothes deal. As for the auction deal the Court found that it was more likely than not that an oral agreement existed between the parties. The Court held that Plaintiff’s breach of contract and accounting claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that Plaintiff had failed to prove damages.

The Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument that the fee award should be apportioned because it was determined that there was only one written contract with an attorneys’ fee provision. “Under Civil Code section 1717, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees even when it wins on the grounds that the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable or nonexistent, so long as the party pursuing the lawsuit would have been entitled to attorney's fees had it prevailed.” Rainier National Bank v. Bodily (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 83, 86. Plaintiff reminds the Court that “[f]or the subsequent two deals, Mitchell testified the parties signed a very short document stating that the terms of those deals were identical to the Dereon jeans deal.” (Pl’s Closing Trial Brief, 5:20-26.) If Plaintiff had prevailed, then Defendants would have been liable for all of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees. Therefore, it is appropriate to award Defendants all the attorneys’ fees incurred.

Conclusion: Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in the amount of $110,920.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CAVALIER CLOSEOUTS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA APPAREL LIQUIDATORS is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer WEISSKOPF STEPHEN D.