On 01/13/2017 OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against EZEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ GUZMAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BRIAN S. CURREY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BRIAN S. CURREY
GUZMAN EZEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
GOLDSTEIN JONATHAN A.
Court documents are not available for this case.
at 08:30 AM in Department A; (Order to Show Cause; Matter continued) -Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department A, Brian S. Currey, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (ORDER RE DISMISSAL PURSUANT TOCRC, RULE 3.1385(B) WITH THECOURT TO RETAIN JURISDICTIONPURSUANT TO CCP 664.6;) - Matter continuedRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department A; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department A; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (OF SETTING OF OSC RE: DISMISSAL ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department A; Post-Mediation Status Conference (Conference-Post Mediation Status; Matter continued) -Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department A, Brian S. Currey, Presiding; Conference-Post Mediation Status - Matter continuedRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Settlement (conditional ); Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Settlement; Filed by OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Cross-Compl fld - Summons Issued (EZEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ GUZMAN VS. TREW INTERNATIONAL, LLC AND ROES 1-100 *THIS X-COMPLT. DISMISSED ON 07/03/17); Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-ComplRead MoreRead Less
Answer to Complaint Filed; Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-ComplRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons FiledRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: TC028673 Hearing Date: August 06, 2020 Dept: A
# 8. Olegario Hernandez v. Ezequiel Guzman
Case No.: TC028673
Matter on calendar for: Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiff Olegario Hernandez bought a certain property from defendant Ezequiel Guzman, who represented the property as compliant with all Los Angeles Zoning Department requirements. After the close of escrow, plaintiff discovered the property was in violation of various ordinances.
The parties settled the action on December 12, 2017. Under the settlement agreement, defendant is obligated to make various changes to the property. Defendant allegedly failed to do so, resulting in plaintiff’s filing a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The parties eventually met and conferred and agreed to modify several provisions of the settlement agreement on January 31, 2020.
Plaintiff now moves for $5,644.60 in attorneys’ fees associated with bringing its motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Defendant opposes the motion.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the motion.
Civil Code § 1717(a) allows for the recovery of attorneys’ fees on a contract where there is a provision specifically awarded fees to a prevailing party. Reasonable fees shall be fixed by the Court. (Civ. Code, § 1717(a).) Upon notice and motion, the Court determines who is the prevailing party, or, if so determined, the Court may declare there is no prevailing party on the contract. (Civ. Code, § 1717(b)(1).)
“The trial court ruling on a motion for fees under [Civil Code § 1717] is vested with discretion in determining which party has prevailed on the contract, or that no party has. [Citation.]” (DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com (2017) 2 Cal.5th 968, 973.) “ ‘If neither party achieves a complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorney fees.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff argues he is entitled to fees because his motion resulted in defendant’s complying with the settlement agreement. Defendant argues that the parties modified the settlement agreement so neither party prevailed on the agreement. Defendant points to the Court’s January 31, 2020 Minute Order which outlines the additional terms:
Defendant will obtain permits for the back house for 960 sq/ft. Defendant will pay all costs associated with bringing the back house in compliance with the permit. Plaintiff must cooperate with defendant.
Plaintiff will be responsible and pay all costs associated with safety violation on the entire property.
(Minute Order, January 31, 2020.) As reflected by the Minute Order, the parties did agree to modify their settlement agreement. Although plaintiff is correct that his motion is the “but for” cause of the new terms and resolution of the recent dispute, defendant is also correct that both parties, as a result of the modification, must comply with modified obligations. In this scenario, and the circumstances of this case, the Court determines that there is no prevailing party.
The motion for attorney’s fees is denied.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases