Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/29/2019 at 01:51:02 (UTC).

JOSEPH CHI CHUN SU VS JAMES JOSEPH SHEAHAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/15/2017 JOSEPH CHI CHUN SU filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JAMES JOSEPH SHEAHAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ROBERT L. HESS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4156

  • Filing Date:

    03/15/2017

  • 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 Judge

ROBERT L. HESS

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SU JOSEPH CHI-CHUN

Defendants and Respondents

BEYKE JANET

SAHU CATHERINE T.

PANTON MARY SHEAHAN

DOES 1 TO 20

SHEAHAN JAMES JOSEPH

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

BEYKE JANET [INDIVIDUAL]

PANTON MARY SHEAHAN [TRUSTEE]

BEYKE JANET [TRUSTEE]

PANTON MARY SHEAHAN [INDIVIDUAL]

PANTON MARY SHEAHAN CO-TRUSTEE

BEYKE JANET CO-TRUSTEE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

SCHORR ZACHARY ESQ.

SCHORR LAW APC

SHERRON ALVIN B. ESQ.

DEB BRYN CARLY

Defendant Attorney

HANCOCK SCOTT ALAN

 

Court Documents

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/2/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Minute Order

3/6/2018: Minute Order

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

6/15/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

6/15/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

6/21/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE

Minute Order

10/24/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

11/20/2018: Notice of Ruling

Declaration

1/8/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

1/22/2019: Minute Order

Status Report

4/10/2019: Status Report

Unknown

11/1/2017: Unknown

SUMMONS

3/15/2017: SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

4/28/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF JOSEPH CHI-CHUN SU'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.

6/2/2017: PLAINTIFF JOSEPH CHI-CHUN SU'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC.

DEFENDANT MARY SHEAHAN PANTON'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF JOSEPH CHI-CHUN SU'S MOTION TO QUASH HER SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC

6/19/2017: DEFENDANT MARY SHEAHAN PANTON'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF JOSEPH CHI-CHUN SU'S MOTION TO QUASH HER SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; ETC

PLAINTIFF JOSEPH CHICHUN SU'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

6/26/2017: PLAINTIFF JOSEPH CHICHUN SU'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Minute Order

6/27/2017: Minute Order

44 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/23/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Held

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Status Report; Filed by Bryn Carly Deb (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2019
  • Declaration (Declaration of Bryn C. Deb, Esq.); Filed by Bryn Carly Deb (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2019
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 24; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 24; Order to Show Cause Re: (Sanctions for parties failure to file report) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions for parties failure to file...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
93 More Docket Entries
  • 04/14/2017
  • PLAINTIFF JOSEPH CHI-CHUN SU'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SEALING CITIBANK, N.A.'S SUBPOENAED DOCUMENT PRODUCTION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • Proof of Service by 1st Class Mail

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by James Joseph Sheahan (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Joseph Chi-Chun Su (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-04-14 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Joseph Chi-Chun Su (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • [COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Joseph Chi-Chun Su (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC654156    Hearing Date: October 14, 2020    Dept: 24

Plaintiff Joseph Chi-Chun Su’s motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED.

On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff Joseph Chi-Chun Su filed the instant action against Defendants James Sheahan, Catherine Sahu, Mary Sheahan Panton, Janet Beyke, and Mary Sheahan Panton and Janet Beyke as Trustee of the U/A Jeanie Hellen Beuvais Revocable Trust dated 04/17/2009 (“TTEE”). The instant suit relates to dispute over an escrow deposition pursuant to a residential purchase agreement Plaintiff entered into with Defendants. The agreement required Plaintiff to deposit $20,100.00 in escrow. Plaintiff was unable to secure the loan, so he cancelled the contract and escrow. Defendants held Plaintiff’s deposit in escrow despite the cancellation.

On July 3, 2019, the parties filed a stipulated settlement.

On September 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

With respect to attorney fees and costs, unless they are specifically provided for by statute (e.g., CCP §§ 1032, et seq.), the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties. (CCP § 1021.) The prevailing party on a contract, which specifically provides for attorney fees and costs incurred to enforce the agreement, is entitled to reasonable attorney fees in addition to other costs. (Civ. Code § 1717(a); CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5(a)(10)(A).) The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine the prevailing party and shall fix, as an element of the costs of suit, the reasonable attorney fees. (Civ. Code § 1717(a), (b).) Any notice of motion to claim attorney fees as an element of costs under shall be served and filed before or at the same time the memorandum of costs is served and filed; if only attorney fees are claimed as costs, the notice of motion shall be served and filed within the time specified in CRC 3.1700 for filing a memorandum of costs. (CRC 3.1702; Gunlock Corp. v. Walk on Water, Inc. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1303, fn. 1.)

“It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623 624.) The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily “begins with the ‘lodestar’ [method], i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154.) “[A] computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award.” (Margolin v. Reg’l Planning Comm’n (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1004.) 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. (See Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49 [discussing factors relevant to proper attorneys’ fees award].) Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id. at 48, fn. 23.) The factors considered in determining the modification of the lodestar include “(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, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” (Mountjoy v. Bank of Am. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 266, 271.)

In challenging attorney fees as excessive because too many hours of work are claimed, it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. (Premier Medical Management Systems, Inc. v. California Ins. Guaranty Assoc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice. (Ibid.)

 

Discussion

 

There is no dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party. The parties entered into a settlement declaring Su the prevailing party and his entitlement to attorneys fees as costs. Section 2 of the settlement agreement provides:

2. Mr. Su shall be considered the "prevailing party" in the Action and shall file and serve a "Cost Bill" —-consistent with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5. "Cost Bill" as used herein, means the costs and attorney's fees Buyer contends he incurred as a direct result of the events and circumstances giving rise to the Action underlying this Stipulation, including costs and attorney's fees incurred through judgment and/or dismissal of the Action, and wherefore, necessarily includes the events and circumstances giving rise to the same civil action. The parties shall participate in private meditation in an effort to settle the previously defined term "Cost Bill" and in the event of no resolution, the Cost Bill and all evidence Seller contends supports the Cost Bill, shall be presented to the court for final and binding determination of the amount Sellers owe Buyer. Any ultimate dismissal of this matter shall not constitute entry of a ruling in favor of the Sellers as defendants or otherwise cause the Sellers to be considered the "prevailing party"

Counsel declares that they sent a cost bill to Defendants’ counsel on July 29, 2019. (Deb Decl., ¶ 6.) Counsel sent several follow up messages to discuss potential mediation regarding costs, but no responses were received. (See Id., ¶¶ 7-11.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is entitled to fees.

Plaintiff submits evidence verifying the various hours billed by multiple attorneys handling the suit. Counsel indicates $50,756.91 in fees, ranging from $187.00 to $450.00 per hour. (Deb Decl., ¶¶ 13-15.) 170.10 hours were billed, as indicated by the attached, verified records. (Id., ¶¶ 17-18.) Plaintiff therefore meets his burden to demonstrate and verify his bills. Defendant failed to oppose and therefore make any specific challenges to the reasonableness of the fees incurred.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer SCHORR ZACHARY D.