This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/28/2019 at 02:07:34 (UTC).

WOLFGANG PUCK ET AL VS W P PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/05/2018 a Other - Arbitration case was filed by WOLFGANG PUCK against W P PRODUCTIONS INC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3923

  • Filing Date:

    06/05/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other - Arbitration

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

DAVID SOTELO

 

Party Details

Petitioners and Plaintiffs

WOLFGANG PUCK

LAZAROFF BARBARA

PUCK WOLFGANG

Defendants and Respondents

W.P. PRODUCTIONS INC.

W. P. APPLIANCES INC.

Not Yet Classified

SILVERMAN SYDNEY

 

Court Documents

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

5/17/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Declaration

5/6/2019: Declaration

Opposition

5/6/2019: Opposition

Reply

5/10/2019: Reply

Request for Judicial Notice

5/10/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/23/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

3/8/2019: Unknown

Unknown

11/8/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

10/24/2018: Minute Order

Notice

11/2/2018: Notice

Declaration

10/24/2018: Declaration

Declaration

10/24/2018: Declaration

Order

10/30/2018: Order

Proof of Personal Service

10/30/2018: Proof of Personal Service

Minute Order

8/13/2018: Minute Order

JUDGMENT

7/25/2018: JUDGMENT

PROOF OF SERVICE RE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

6/21/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE RE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

82 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/21/2019
  • Notice (of Entry of Second Amended Judgment); Filed by Barbara Lazaroff (Plaintiff); Wolfgang Puck (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Motion for Assignment Order (and Motion to Add a party) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 2:11 PM in Department 40; Nunc Pro Tunc Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order) of 05/17/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Sydney Silverman (Non-Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT; Filed by Barbara Lazaroff (Plaintiff); Wolfgang Puck (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Assignment Order and Motion to Add a party) of 05/17/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Assignment Order and Motion to Add a party)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Barbara Lazaroff (Plaintiff); Wolfgang Puck (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
107 More Docket Entries
  • 07/03/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Barbara Lazaroff (Plaintiff); Wolfgang Puck (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE RE PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Barbara Lazaroff (Plaintiff); Wolfgang Puck (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Barbara Lazaroff (Plaintiff); Wolfgang Puck (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/21/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE RE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PETITION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • PETITION TO CONFIRM, CORRECT, OR VACATE CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION AWARD

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • Petition; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BS173923    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Wolfgang Puck and Barbara Lazaroff

OPPOSITION: Respondents W.P. Productions and W.P. Appliances;

Sydney Silverman

Petitioners Wolfgang Puck (“Puck”) and Barbara Lazaroff (“Lazaroff”) (collectively “Petitioners”) entered into a licensing agreement with W.P. Productions (“WPP”) and W.P. Appliances (“WPA”) to sell Wolfgang Puck branded kitchen products. A dispute arose amongst the parties over the payment of royalties and other monies due under the licensing agreement. In October 2017, Petitioners initiated arbitration against WPP and WPA (collectively “Respondents”). The arbitration ultimately resulted in an award against Respondents in the amount of $2,430,850.89.

On July 25, 2018, the Court entered a judgment against WPP and WPA.

On November 11, 2018, the Court amended the judgment to include additional amounts in costs and fees.

On May 17, 2019, the Court amended the judgment further to add Sydney Silverman as a judgment debtor.

On October 29, 2019, Respondents satisfied the judgment. However, the parties dispute whether an additional $70,594.57 in interest is owed.

Petitioners request that Respondents be ordered to pay $235,948.25 in costs and attorneys’ fees.

Judicial Notice: Petitioners request judicial notice of their ex parte OSC motion pursuant to Evidence Code § 452 (d). The Court will take judicial notice of the documents.

Standard: “The judgment creditor is entitled to the reasonable and necessary costs of enforcing a judgment…Attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are included as costs collectible under this title if the underlying judgment includes an award of attorney’s fees to the judgment creditor pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (10) of subdivision (a) of Section 1033.5.” (CCP § 685.040.) The judgment creditor may claim costs by noticed motion. The motion “shall be made before the judgment is satisfied in full, but not later than two years after the costs have been incurred.” (CCP § 685.080(A).) Fees for time enforcing the underlying judgment include fees incurred in defending the validity of the judgment against challenge. Globalist Internet Techs., Inc. v. Reda (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1267, 1274.

Satisfaction: Respondents argue that the motion is untimely because the judgment has been satisfied. The instant motion must be made before the judgment is satisfied in full. (See CCP § 685.080; In re Conservatorship of McQueen (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 602, 615-16.)

Petitioners argue the judgment was not paid in full because Respondents failed to pay post-judgment interest that accrued from the date of the Original Judgment to the date of the Amended Judgment. Conversely, Respondents argue that they satisfied the judgment because they paid all monies owed and the post-judgment interest that accrued from the entry of the Second Amended Judgment. Respondent cites to Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 635, 655, which held that interest on awards of costs and fees incurred post-judgment accrues from the date the amount of the fee award is fixed rather than from the date of the original judgment. Respondents argue that the amount of judgment was not fixed until the Second Amended Judgment was entered on May 17, 2019.

However, Petitioners are correct that Lucky also stands for the proposition that post-judgment awards of costs and fees which were incurred prejudgment are entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the original judgment entry. (Id. at p. 657.) That is the factual scenario that occurred in this matter. The Court, post-judgment, awarded costs which were incurred pre-judgment. Therefore, Petitioners are correct the Second Amended Judgment relates back to the Original Judgment and therefore an additional $70,594 in interest was owed. Thus, there has only been partial satisfaction of the judgment.

Res Judicata: Petitioner’s enforced the judgment in Florida. Petitioner’s sought to conduct post-judgment discovery of Respondents. Respondents’ objected and at a hearing offered to pay the judgment. The Florida court determined that it would not order discovery if Respondents paid the face amount of the second judgment. The Florida court indicated that payment of the face amount of the second judgment, and the interest accrued from the date of its entry, constituted full payment. The general rule is that a final judgment on the merits rendered in one state has a res judicata effect on a second proceeding in another states that involves the same parties and issue which were litigated and decided in the former proceeding. Brinker v. Superior Court (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1296, 1299. However, the Florida Court’s order was not a final decision on the merits. The order was an interlocutory order that stated that if Respondents paid the face amount of the second judgment, and interest from that date of entry, then they would not be subject to post-judgment discovery.

This Court finds that it is not bound by the Florida court’s determination that Respondents had fully satisfied the judgment as it was not a ruling on the merits.

Lack of Documentation: Respondents argue that Petitioner’s documentation is insufficient to support the amount of attorneys’ fees demanded. The Court has reviewed Petitioners’ billing records and declarations and finds that they satisfy the burden of proof.

Section 187 Fees: Respondent argues that Petitioners are not entitled to fees incurred in their CCP § 187 motion. Respondent relies on Highland Springs Conference & Training Center v. City of Banning (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 416, 426, which held that a section 187 motion to amend a judgment does not count as enforcing the judgment because the motion “does nothing to satisfy the judgment the movant seeks to amend. Rather, a section 187 motion, if granted, merely allows the judgment creditor to enforce the now-amended judgment against the additional judgment debtor.” Petitioners argue that Highland was fact specific and that they could have filed a separate action against Silverman to enforce the judgment and that the fees incurred in that action would have been recoverable. (See In re Conservatorship of McQueen (2014) 59 Cal.4th 602, 612-613 [holding that the plaintiff’s separate action to prevent the transfer of assets was done to aid the enforcement of the judgment and thus the fees incurred in the action were recoverable].) The Court finds that satisfaction of the judgment was not possible without the filing of the section 187 motion and therefore will award Petitioners the fees incurred.

Remand Fees: Respondents argue that the reasoning of Highland should apply to Petitioners’ request for fees incurred in their motion to remand. As noted by Petitioners, Highland does not address motions to remand.

Instant Motion Fees: Respondents argue that the 66.75 hours billed for this motion are unreasonable and not supported by the documentation provided. The Court has reviewed the documentation provided and finds it satisfactory.

Conclusion: The Court awards Petitioners $235,948.25 in costs and attorneys’ fees.