Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/26/2019 at 03:32:32 (UTC).

OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ VS. EZEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ GUZMAN

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8673

  • Filing Date:

    01/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

BRIAN S. CURREY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HERNANDEZ OLEGARIO

Defendants

GUZMAN EZEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ

DOES 1-100

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

LOPEZ STEVE

Defendant Attorney

GOLDSTEIN JONATHAN A.

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/27/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; (Order to Show Cause; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • 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 continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • at 09:30 AM in Department A; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • at 09:30 AM in Department A; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • Notice; Filed by OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • Notice (OF SETTING OF OSC RE: DISMISSAL ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; Post-Mediation Status Conference (Conference-Post Mediation Status; Matter continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department A, Brian S. Currey, Presiding; Conference-Post Mediation Status - Matter continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • Notice-Settlement (conditional ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2017
  • Notice of Settlement; Filed by OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
24 More Docket Entries
  • 03/01/2017
  • 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-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2017
  • Answer to Complaint Filed; Filed by Atty for Defendant and Cross-Compl

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/13/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by OLEGARIO HERNANDEZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

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.

  1. Standard

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).)

  1. Analysis

    “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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  1. Ruling

    The motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

    Next dates:

    Notice:

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer GOLDSTEIN, JONATHAN A.