This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/26/2019 at 03:01:50 (UTC).

SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. ALVARO MORENO

Case Summary

On 03/27/2018 a Property - Other Real Property case was filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC against ALVARO MORENO in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9102

  • Filing Date:

    03/27/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

MAURICE A. LEITER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION INC.

Defendants

DOES 1-25

MORENO ALVARO

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/27/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Management Conference

3/27/2018: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons

3/27/2018: Summons

Complaint

3/27/2018: Complaint

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

4/10/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Proof of Service by Mail

4/17/2018: Proof of Service by Mail

Unknown

4/25/2018: Unknown

Case Management Statement

8/21/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

9/4/2018: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

9/4/2018: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

9/5/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

9/5/2018: Minute Order

Notice

4/23/2019: Notice

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/25/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/25/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Trial Brief

4/25/2019: Trial Brief

Minute Order

4/29/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

6/7/2019: Minute Order

17 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/12/2019
  • Notice (of Final Status Conference and Trial); Filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 11:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/29/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) (by Mail); Filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
16 More Docket Entries
  • 04/25/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; (Case Ordered Reassigned; Case Reassigned for all purposes) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Miscellaneous-Other; Filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Civil case cover sheet; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by SCOTTSDALE TOWNHOUSES ASSOCIATION, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC029102    Hearing Date: January 16, 2020    Dept: A

# 8. Scottsdale Townhouses Association v. Alvaro Moreno

Case No.: TC029102

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiff Scottsdale Townhouses Association is a mutual benefit corporation for the Scottsdale Townhouses, a 600-unit development in Carson. Defendant Alvaro Moreno was found to have violated the Association’s Governing Documents after a bench trial. Although initially represented, Defense counsel withdrew before the trial. Defendant is currently self-represented.

    Plaintiff now moves to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. A motion to tax costs has not been filed as to challenge Plaintiff’s filed memorandum of costs. Accordingly, this motion is best treated as a motion for attorneys’ fees only.

    Plaintiff seeks $77,504 in attorneys’ fees for prosecuting this action, with an additional $2,120 for drafting this motion and for any defense thereof. The Court continued this hearing to the current date and requested Plaintiff file the detailed billing reports for this action, which it subsequently submitted.

    For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion in part.

  2. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a) lists the costs that are recoverable and includes attorney’s fees when they are authorized by either contract, statute, or law. (C.C.P., § 1033.5(a)(10).) “ ‘[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hour rate . . . . The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing rate in the community for similar work. [Citations.] 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. [Citation.]’ [PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095]” (City of Santa Rosa v. Patel (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 65, 69.)

Various factors to be considered are: “(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. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) An adjustment may also account for the “ ‘lack of overall success.’ ” (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 407, 425.) “The ‘ “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

  1. Analysis

    Civil Code § 5975 requires the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in an action to enforce an association’s governing documents (bylaws, association rules, articles of incorporation). A review of the judgment indicates that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter as it succeeded on its Complaint.

    1. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

This was a straightforward matter. Although Defendant was originally represented by counsel, the record reflects an absence of motion work. Further, this was a not a complex case: Defendants were alleged to have breached their homeowners’ agreement. The relatively simple nature of the action guided the Court’s decision. After a review of the billing records, the Court finds a total reduction of 19.7 hours from Steven Banks, primarily related to the bench trial, is necessary to reach an appropriate reasonable hour count. Similarly, 16.3 hours were subtracted from Julie Luci, a paralegal who assisted Mr. Banks. These reductions result in a monetary figure of $7,013.50.

Additionally, this motion is unopposed. The billing records do not encompass this motion, but the declaration of Steven Banks estimates the total cost of this motion, including an opposition and reply, to be $2,120. Without an opposition, the Court reduces this figure to $1000.

  1. Ruling

    The motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in part. Plaintiff is awarded $71,490.50

    Next dates:

    Notice:

Case Number: TC029102    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: A

# 9. Scottsdale Townhouses Association v. Alvaro Moreno

Case No.: TC029102

Matter on calendar for: Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Plaintiff Scottsdale Townhouses Association is a mutual benefit corporation for the Scottsdale Townhouses, a 600-unit development in Carson. Defendant Alvaro Moreno was found to have violated the Association’s Governing Documents after a bench trial. Although initially represented, Defense counsel withdrew before the trial. Defendant is currently self-represented.

    Plaintiff now moves to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. A motion to tax costs has not been filed as to challenge Plaintiff’s filed memorandum of costs. Accordingly, this motion is best treated as a motion for attorneys’ fees only.

    Plaintiff seeks $77,504 in attorneys’ fees for prosecuting this action, with an additional $2,120 for drafting this motion and for any defense thereof.

  2. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1033.5(a) lists the costs that are recoverable and includes attorney’s fees when they are authorized by either contract, statute, or law. (C.C.P., § 1033.5(a)(10).) “ ‘[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar,” i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hour rate . . . . The reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing rate in the community for similar work. [Citations.] 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. [Citation.]’ [PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095]” (City of Santa Rosa v. Patel (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 65, 69.)

Various factors to be considered are: “(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. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) An adjustment may also account for the “ ‘lack of overall success.’ ” (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 407, 425.) “The ‘ “experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.” ’ [Citation.]” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.)

  1. Analysis

    Civil Code § 5975 requires the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in an action to enforce an association’s governing documents (bylaws, association rules, articles of incorporation). A review of the judgment clearly indicates that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter as it succeeded on its Complaint.

    However, the burden is on Plaintiff to sufficiently set forth prima facie evidence to support its requested award of attorneys’ fees. Although Plaintiff provides a declaration that summarily recounts the hours spent on this action, the Court requests Plaintiff provide Plaintiff’s counsel billing records so the Court may review the reasonableness of the request. The party seeking fees “ ‘ “bear[s] the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” [Citation.] To that end, the court may require [a party] [ ] to produce records sufficient to provide “ ‘a proper basis for determining how much time was spent on particular claims.’ ” [Citation.] The court also may properly reduce compensation on account of any failure to maintain appropriate time records. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.)

  2. Ruling

    The hearing on the motion for attorneys’ fees is continued until January 16, 2020. Plaintiff’s counsel to submit billing records for the requested fees by January 9, 2020.

    Next dates: Motion for Attorney’s Fees - January 16, 2020 at 9:00 A.M., Compton Courthouse, Dept A.

    Notice: Plaintiff to give notice.