This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/05/2019 at 09:29:22 (UTC).

ZIP STEVENSON LLC VS TED KIM

Case Summary

On 06/23/2017 ZIP STEVENSON LLC filed a Property - Commercial Eviction lawsuit against TED KIM. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHANIE M. BOWICK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6060

  • Filing Date:

    06/23/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Commercial Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

STEPHANIE M. BOWICK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Defendants and Respondents

KIM TED

ZIP STEVENSON LLC

1501 WASH LLC

DOES 1 TO 10

STEVENSON ZIP

Plaintiff, Defendant and Petitioner

ZIP STEVENSON LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

DAGGENHURST RICHARD GEOFFREY

TRUTANICH DOMINIC J.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

SONG RICHARD ESQ.

GAUGH KENNETH RAY ESQ.

SONG RICHARD

TRUTANICH DOMINIC JOHN

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

9/10/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE AND NOTION FOR COMPLETE CONSOLIDATION OF ALL FOUR RELATED CASES INTO ONE CASE AND TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS; PROPOSED ORDER

9/27/2018: NOTICE AND NOTION FOR COMPLETE CONSOLIDATION OF ALL FOUR RELATED CASES INTO ONE CASE AND TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS; PROPOSED ORDER

Motion to Compel Discovery

2/1/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Motion to Deem RFA"s Admitted

2/1/2019: Motion to Deem RFA"s Admitted

Opposition

2/26/2019: Opposition

Notice

2/26/2019: Notice

Notice

2/26/2019: Notice

Motion for Leave to Amend

3/4/2019: Motion for Leave to Amend

Witness List

4/25/2019: Witness List

Witness List

4/25/2019: Witness List

Exhibit List

4/25/2019: Exhibit List

Unknown

4/26/2019: Unknown

Minute Order

4/26/2019: Minute Order

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

8/3/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

6/30/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Unknown

7/26/2017: Unknown

Minute Order

8/22/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

9/22/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION

43 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/09/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 19; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 11:18 AM in Department 19; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 10:57 AM in Department 19; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • at 09:00 AM in Department 19; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/26/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 04/26/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 19; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to bring in New Party Plaintiff) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2019
  • Answer; Filed by Ted Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
71 More Docket Entries
  • 07/26/2017
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Ted Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • ANSWER-UNLAWFUL DETAINER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Ted Kim (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/30/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • SUMMONS (UNLAWFUL DETAINER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Zip Stevenson LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • COMPLAINT-UNLAWFUL DETAINER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/22/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Zip Stevenson LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC666060    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: 19

Plaintiff Zip Stevenson, LLC’s unopposed motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in its entirety. The Court awards Plaintiff $17,000.00 in reasonable attorney’s fees to Plaintiff as the prevailing party in this matter.

The Court enters Plaintiff’s proposed order.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case arises in unlawful detainer. On 11/28/2018, Case Nos. BC666060, BC666061, BC670024, and 17U00643 were ordered consolidated.

The subject property is a commercial building, located at 1501-1509 W. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90067 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff Zip Stevenson brought suit against Defendant Ted Kim  ("Defendant") for alleged failure to pay rent related to his leased units in the Subject Property.

The Court conducted a four-day bench trial starting on July 29, 2019 and concluding August 5, 2019.  On November 14, 2019, the Court adopted its tentative statement of decision as the final statement of decision. On December 5, 2019, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $259,200.00.

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Plaintiff Zip Stevenson, LLC moves for attorney’s fees as the prevailing party on the parties’ commercial lease agreement within the meaning of Civil Code section 1717.

Plaintiff seeks $17,000.00 in attorney’s fees for 42.5 hours expended at the rate of $400.00 per hour.

DISCUSSION

Under Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a): “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(1) provides: “The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment. . . . the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.”

Plaintiff avers that the commercial lease agreement signed by the parties provided for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for the prevailing party in any action arising out of the agreement. (Gaugh Decl. ¶3.) Defendant does not oppose the instant motion. The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this consolidated action and entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717.

“A trial court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of the case.” (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321 [internal quotations omitted].) “The reasonableness of attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court, to be determined from a consideration of such factors as the nature of the litigation, the complexity of the issues, the experience and expertise of counsel and the amount of time involved. [citation] The court may also consider whether the amount requested is based upon unnecessary or duplicative work.” (Wilkerson v. Sullivan (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) “The basis for the trial court's calculation must be the actual hours counsel has devoted to the case, less those that result from inefficient or duplicative use of time.” (Horsford v. Board Of Trustees Of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395.) “The law is clear, however, that an award of attorney fees may be based on counsel's declarations, without production of detailed time records.” (Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1375.)

The Court finds that $400 per hour is a reasonable rate for an attorney of Mr. Gaugh’s skill and experience, and considering the nature of this case in the Los Angeles legal market. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1136). The Court reviews counsel’s declaration and finds that the time expended by counsel on the four unlawful detainer lawsuits was reasonable. The Court awards the 42.5 hours of time sought by Plaintiff.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in its entirety. The Court awards the entire $17,000.00 in attorney’s fees sought.