This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/05/2020 at 19:08:45 (UTC).

MAEIS AMEDY VS. DEANNE AZIZIAN

Case Summary

On 05/24/2018 MAEIS AMEDY filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against DEANNE AZIZIAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE, RALPH C. HOFER, LAURA A. MATZ and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8692

  • Filing Date:

    05/24/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

OTHER DISTRICT JUDGE

RALPH C. HOFER

LAURA A. MATZ

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AMEDY MAEIS

Defendants

AZIZIAN CRAIG

AZIZIAN DEANNE

AZIZIAN JOHN J.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MICHAEL P. RUBIN & ASSOCIATES

RUBIN MICHAEL PHILIP

Defendant Attorneys

NUSSBAUM APC

APC NUSSBAUM

STEPHENS TIMOTHY JOHN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

6/18/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

3/20/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order

12/16/2019: Notice of Entry of Judgment / Dismissal / Other Order

Judgment - JUDGMENT - COURT FINDING - AFTER COURT TRIAL - 12/16/2019 ENTERED FOR DEFENDANT AZIZIAN, JOHN J.; DEFENDANT AZIZIAN, DEANNE; DEFENDANT AZIZIAN, CRAIG AGAINST PLAINTIFF AMEDY, MAEIS.

12/16/2019: Judgment - JUDGMENT - COURT FINDING - AFTER COURT TRIAL - 12/16/2019 ENTERED FOR DEFENDANT AZIZIAN, JOHN J.; DEFENDANT AZIZIAN, DEANNE; DEFENDANT AZIZIAN, CRAIG AGAINST PLAINTIFF AMEDY, MAEIS.

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-JURY TRIAL)

11/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-JURY TRIAL)

Trial Brief - TRIAL BRIEF : DEFENDANTS' POST TRIAL BRIEF

11/8/2019: Trial Brief - TRIAL BRIEF : DEFENDANTS' POST TRIAL BRIEF

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

10/1/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

9/18/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/19/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice - NOTICE OF MANDATORY STATUS CONFERENCE

6/3/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF MANDATORY STATUS CONFERENCE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

5/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)

Notice of Case Management Conference

5/24/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

5/24/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Ex-Parte Application

7/3/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Ex-Parte Application

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Jury Fee Deposit by Plaintiff

7/23/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Jury Fee Deposit by Plaintiff

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

1/29/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Subsequent Depositon of Craig Azizian

12/28/2018: Opposition - Opposition Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Subsequent Depositon of Craig Azizian

86 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by DEANNE AZIZIAN (Defendant); JOHN J. AZIZIAN (Defendant); CRAIG AZIZIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • DocketOrder (on Defendants' Motion for Attorney's Fees)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2020
  • Docketat 2:00 PM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2020
  • DocketReply (to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Attorney's Fees); Filed by DEANNE AZIZIAN (Defendant); JOHN J. AZIZIAN (Defendant); CRAIG AZIZIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/21/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department E, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review

    Read MoreRead Less
138 More Docket Entries
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by MAEIS AMEDY (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2018
  • DocketNotice (OF PENDENCY OF ACTION. ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketSummons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketNotice of Order to Show Cause Re Failure to Comply with Trial Court Delay Reduction Act

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC068692    Hearing Date: June 25, 2020    Dept: E

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

Date: 6/25/20 (10:00 AM)

Case: Maeis Amedy v. Deanne Azizian, et al. (EC068692)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Deanne Azizian, John J. Azizian and Craig Azizian, as Trustees of the Azizian Family Trust Dated June 1, 1995’s Motion for Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in Favor of Defendants is GRANTED.

The “Rental/Lease Agreement with Option to Purchase” at issue in this case contained a provision for attorney’s fees and costs, stating in relevant part: “IN THE EVENT LEGAL ACTION IS BROUGHT IN ORDER TO ENFORCE ANY OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE PREVAILING PARTY MAY RECOVER FROM THE OTHER, REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COURT COST.” (1/21/20 Stephens Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. A at p. 2 [all capitals in original].) Because judgment was entered in favor of defendants, defendants are the prevailing party entitled to fees. (CCP § 1032(a)(4) [prevailing party includes “defendant as against those plaintiffs who do not recover any relief against that defendant”].)

Plaintiff Maeis Amedy argues defendants cannot enforce the attorney fee provision because the Court found that the subject agreement was forged. (Amedy Decl. Ex. 2 at p.1 [11/12/19 Minute Order (“[T]he evidence supports the finding that the Lease Option Agreement is a forged document”)].) Although the agreement plaintiff sought to enforce may be a forgery, Civil Code § 1717(a) allows for mutuality of remedy “when a person sued on a contract containing a provision for attorney fees to the prevailing party defends the litigation by successfully arguing the inapplicability, invalidity, unenforceability, or nonexistence of the same contract.” (Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599, 611.) Put another way, because plaintiff sought attorney fees in the event he had prevailed on his attempt to enforce the forged lease agreement (see Compl. ¶ 17 & Prayer for Relief ¶ 6), out of fairness and equity, defendants may likewise rely on that same document to recover fees. (North Associates v. Bell (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 860, 865 [“We believe it is extraordinarily inequitable to deny a party who successfully defends an action on a contract, which claims attorney’s fees, the right to recover its attorney’s fees and costs simply because the party initiating the case has filed a frivolous lawsuit. As a consequence, we find that a prevailing defendant sued for breach of contract containing an attorney’s fees provision and having had to defend the contract cause of action is entitled to recover its own attorney’s fees and costs therefor, even though the trial court finds no contract existed”].) Accordingly, as the prevailing party in this action, defendants are entitled to recovery of their attorney’s fees pursuant to the terms of the Rental/Lease Agreement with Option to Purchase plaintiff sought to enforce.

As for the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees to be recovered, because plaintiff did not oppose any specific billing entries, to the extent plaintiff contends the fee request is excessive, plaintiff does not meet his burden. (Premier Medical Management. Systems, Inc. v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564 [“[I]t is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence. General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice”].) Having independently reviewed defendants’ submission for fees and costs, the Court finds that the request for attorney fees in the amount of $60,450.00 and the requests for costs in the amount of $8,610.45 for a total award of $69,060.45 is reasonable. (Stephens Decl. ¶ 7 & Exs. B, C.)