SCAR PETITION - Romano 2024 town Petition July 22, 2024 (2024)

Case

Susan Stafford v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806486/2024

Case

Pooran Rampersaud v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806689/2024

Case

Margaret Marino v. Southold Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806900/2024

Case

Abraham Oommen v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806608/2024

Case

Jerry Gallagher v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806709/2024

Case

Rosanne Sheehan v. Islip Town Of

Jul 22, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |700246/2024

Case

Linwood Lee v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806457/2024

Case

Marc Gigliello v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806696/2024

Case

Margaret Fitzgerald v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806442/2024

Ruling

CIRCA 1200, LLC VS GABRIEL TRETYAKOV, AN INDIVIDUAL

Jul 31, 2024 |Echo Dawn Ryan |23STCV26420

Case Number: 23STCV26420 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 26 7/31/2024 Dept. 26 Hon. Rolf Treu, Judge presiding CIRCA 1200, LLC v. TRETYAKOV (23STCV26420) Counsel for Plaintiff: Richard Scott (The Molino Firm) Counsel for Defendants: N/A pLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT (filed 5/08/2024) TENTATIVE RULING The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment. I. BACKGROUND On December 30, 2023, Plaintiff Circa 1200, LLC (Plaintiff) filed the instant action against Defendants Gabriel Tretyakov alleging causes of action for breach of contract and common counts. The Complaint alleges the following. On or about May 29, 2020, Plaintiff as Lessor & Defendant as Lessee, entered into a residential lease agreement for rental of 1200 S. Figueroa St.# 3403 Los Angeles, CA 90015. Defendant thereafter fell behind, then completely failed to make payments due under the Lease and caused damage to the residence. Defendant was evicted and/or moved out on 04/27/2022. Defendant left a balance due of $229.962.83 for rental charges, fees & repairs for damage to the residence, as described in the Final Account Statement. Plaintiff is damaged in the amount of $229.962.83, plus interest at the rate of 10% per annum, attorney fees and costs. On April 29, 2024, the Court found default was entered against Defendant. (Courts 4/29/24 Minute Order.) On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed an OSC re: Default Judgment. Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $277,785.43. II.ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursem*nts; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.) B. Application SUBMITTED: CRC 3.1800 1. Use of JC Form CIV-100 Yes 2. Dismissal or judgment of non-parties to the judgment Yes 3. Declaration of non-military status for each defendant Yes 4. Summary of the case Yes 5. 585(d) declarations/admissible evidence in support Yes 6. Exhibits (as necessary) Yes 7. Interest computation (as necessary) Yes 8. Cost memorandum Yes 9. Request for attorney fees (Local Rule 3.214) Yes Damages Summary: Damages $ 229,962.83 Punitive Damages N/A Interest $ 46,622.60 Attorneys fees $ 564.25 Costs $ 635.75 TOTAL $ 277,785.43 Other relief requested N/A Here, Plaintiff has complied with all requirements for a default judgment. Plaintiff submitted the declaration of Kevin Garner, the Community Manager for Plaintiff Circa 1200, LLC. (Garner Decl., ¶ 1.) Garner provided a summary of the case, attached the Residential Lease Agreement and Final Accounting Statement showing the payments due and provided a computation of interest. Garner states that Defendants outstanding balance of damages totaled $277,785.43, including the principal sum of $229,962.83, and total accrued interest in the sum of $46,622.60, attorneys fees in the amount of $564.25 and costs in the amount $635.75. (Id., ¶¶ 3-6.) Plaintiff calculated the prejudgment interest at 10% per annum from April 27, 2022 to May 6, 2024. (Id., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff also states the attorneys fees are calculated according to Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule 3.214(a). (Id., ¶ 5.) Since Plaintiff has complied with the requirements, Plaintiffs request for default judgment is GRANTED. III. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs request for default judgment is GRANTED.

Ruling

GARO MARDIROSSIAN VS FRED HOWARTH

Jul 30, 2024 |20SMCV01557

Case Number: 20SMCV01557 Hearing Date: July 30, 2024 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Mardirossian v. Howarth, Case No. 20SMCV01557 Hearing Date: July 30, 2023 Cross-complainant Howarths Motion for Reconsideration Via cross-complainant Howarths Third Amended Cross-Complaint, Howarth alleges his neighbor Mardirossian installed a fence encroaching on his property, built a tennis court violating a Coastal Development Permit and setback requirements, and failed to construct a noise-mitigating masonry wall as required. The court granted, in part, Mardirossians summary judgment/adjudication motion. Howarth moves for reconsideration. Evidentiary Rulings Howarths request for the court to take judicial notice of (1) Howarths Opposition to Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Garo Mardirossians Motion for Summary Judgment, (2) Howarths Response to Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Garo Mardirossians Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment, (3) the Declaration of John LoVerde, and (4) the courts Ruling on Submitted Matter issued on 04/29/24, hereinafter referred to as Exhibits 1-4 respectively, are GRANTED under Evidence Code § 452(d) as the documents are records of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must present new facts, circ*mstances or law. CCP §1008(a); see also Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342. The party seeking reconsideration shall state by affidavit what application was made before, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts or circ*mstances are claimed to be shown. CCP §1008(a). Further, . . . the party seeking reconsideration must provide not only new evidence but also a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce that evidence at an earlier time. Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1457 [emphasis added]. The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circ*mstances where a party offers the court some fact or circ*mstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500. Howarth argues the court made a factual error, arguing that no wall was actually constructed on the relevant property line, or the evidence presented in the LoVerde declaration. Howarths counsel resubmits evidence previously provided to the court in connection with the motion for summary judgment. Neither the declaration and the accompanying documents provides the court with new facts, circ*mstances or law, as required under CCP §1008(a). Given this, the court cannot grant the motion for reconsideration. Relitigating the courts decision, arguing the court made an erroneous decision, does not meet moving partys burden. DENIED.

Ruling

ANTHONY GREENBERG VS DIANE HAYEK

Jul 29, 2024 |6/18/2022 |19SMCV01899

Case Number: 19SMCV01899 Hearing Date: July 29, 2024 Dept: I The matter is here for an FSC. The FSC order was issued no later than 11/30/23, but perhaps earlier. In any event, there are no FSC papers of which the court is aware other than four MILs by defendant to which there is no opposition and a unilateral exhibit list. The matter does not appear ready for trial. On 7/26/24, Greenberg filed an application to continue the trial. Greenberg notes that all of the matters between the parties have been settled except for 2101 Oceans cross-complaint alleging improper behavior after Greenberg lost the UD trial and before he moved out and also damage to the property. Greenberg then filed a cross complaint stating that he paid $75,000 in rent for which 2101 has not accounted and also that he should get the benefits of improvements he made to the property. He argues that there has not been adequate time to conduct discovery on these matters but that if the trial were continued, the case would settle. The court has its doubts as to settlement. If the parties want to settle, they ought to do so. If not, then not. The court would deny the application if that is all there were to it. But Greenbergs counsel also claims that he has suffered certain medical issues that preclude him from trying the case on August 5. The court watched Greenbergs counsel during the UD case, and the court believes that during the trial he conducted himself ethically and honestly. The court is inclined to believe his declaration now. Although the court is reluctant to do so, the court believes that this is a circ*mstance that does justify a continuance. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. The trial date is VACATED, and a TSC will be held on August 5, 2024, at 8:30 am. Counsel may appear by phone.

Ruling

CREATIVE RECOVERY CONCEPTS, INC. VS 8424 WESTERN PLAZA, LLC., ET AL.

Aug 01, 2024 |20STCV34671

Case Number: 20STCV34671 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: 50 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 50 CREATIVE RECOVERY CONCEPTS, Plaintiff, vs. 8242 WESTERN PLAZA, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 20STCV34671 [c/w 22STCV13629] Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT M STEPHEN CHO FOR FEES PURSUANT TO CCP § 425.16 Background On September 10, 2020, Creative Recovery Concepts, Inc. filed the instant action against Defendants 8424 Western Plaza, LLC and Kathleen Janet Haywood aka Kathleen Robinson. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) to set aside fraudulent transfer. On April 25, 2022, a Complaint was filed in the matter Janet Haywood, et al. v. Stephen Cho, et al., Case No. 22STCV13629 (herein, the Haywood Action). On February 9, 2023, Janet Haywood (Haywood) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) in the Haywood Action against Defendants Stephen Cho and Creative Recovery Concepts. The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) conspiracy to defraud. On July 6, 2023, M. Stephen Cho (erroneously sued as Stephen Cho) (herein, Cho) filed a special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 in the Haywood Action. On October 31, 2023, the Court issued a minute order in the Haywood Action providing, inter alia, that the Court grants Chos special motion to strike as to the third cause of action of the FAC. Chos motion is otherwise denied. On October 9, 2023, the Court issued a Nunc Pro Tunc Order in the Haywood Action providing, inter alia, as follows: It appearing to the Court that through inadvertence and/or clerical error, the minute order of 10/09/2023 in the above-entitled action does not properly reflect the Courts order. At the direction of the Judicial Officer, said minute order is corrected nunc pro tunc as of 10/09/2023, as follows: By adding: The Court orders the following cases, 22STCV13629 and 20STCV34671, consolidated and assigned to Department 50 in Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. The Court designates 20stcv34671 as the lead case. All future documents must be filed under 20stcv34671 (CREATIVE RECOVERY CONCEPTS, INC. vs 8424 WESTERN PLAZA, LLC., et al.). Case numbers on all subsequent filings should be reflected under the lead case. (Emphasis added.) Cho now moves for attorneys fees and costs incurred by Cho in connection with his special motion to strike. Haywood opposes. Discussion The anti-SLAPP statute provides that a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendants attorneys fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (c)(1).) [A]ny SLAPP defendant who brings a successful motion to strike is entitled to mandatory attorney fees. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131.) An award of fees may also include the fees incurred in enforcing the right to mandatory fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. (Id. at p. 1141.) It is well established that the amount of an attorney fee award under the anti-SLAPP statute is computed by the trial court in accordance with the familiar lodestar method. (569 East County Boulevard LLC v. Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 432 [internal quotations and brackets omitted].) Under the lodestar method, the court tabulates the attorney fee lodestar by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate prevailing in the community for similar work. (Ibid.) With regard to the number of hours reasonably expended, the verified time statements of the attorneys, as officers of the court, are entitled to credence in the absence of a clear indication the records are erroneous. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 396.) In determining the reasonable hourly rate, the burden is on the successful party to prove the appropriate market rate to be used in calculating the lodestar. (MBNA America Bank, N.A. v. Gorman (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 13.) The trial court may reduce the award where the fee request appears unreasonably inflated, such as where the attorneys efforts are unorganized or duplicative. (Serrano v. Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, 635, fn. 21.) Here, Cho states that he is seeking an award of $19,160.00, derived as follows: $11,600.00 for the anti-SLAPP motion + $7,560.00 as fees costs [sic] for the instant motion& (Notice of Mot. at p. 2:3-4.) As an initial matter, Haywood asserts in the opposition that the motion should be denied because the partially successful anti-SLAPP motion has no practical effect on the remaining causes of action to be litigated. (Oppn at p. 3:16-17.) Haywood cites to City of Colton v. Singletary (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 751, 782, where the Court of Appeal noted that [t]he anti-SLAPP statute reflects the Legislatures strong preference for awarding attorney fees to successful defendants. The term prevailing party must be interpreted broadly to favor an award of attorney fees to a partially successful defendant. However, a fee award is not required when the motion, though partially successful, was of no practical effect. [A] party who partially prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion must generally be considered a prevailing party unless the results of the motion were so insignificant that the party did not achieve any practical benefit from bringing the motion. The determination whether a party prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion lies within the broad discretion of [the] trial court. (Internal quotations and references to [Citation.] omitted.) As set forth above, the Court granted Chos special motion to strike as to the third cause of action of the FAC for conspiracy to defraud. (See October 31, 2023 Minute Order.) In the opposition to the instant motion, Haywood cites to IIG Wireless, Inc. v. Yi (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 630, 652, where the Court of Appeal noted that [c]onspiracy is not a separate tort, but a form of vicarious liability by which one defendant can be held liable for the acts of another. Haywood contends that a conspiracy cause of action is dependent on the success of the underlying cause of action. Here, no underlying claim was alleged -- fraud was not alleged; malicious prosecution was not alleged. In brief, striking the third cause of action has no value or practical effect on the remaining causes of action alleged and pending for breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing causes of action. (Oppn at p. 4:8-12.) Haywood also contends that [i]t would have been different if striking the cause of action also removed a significant amount of damages prayed against Cho. However, this is not the case, as there really is no practical effect or benefit to Cho in striking the conspiracy cause of action. (Oppn at p. 4:4-6.) But as noted by Cho in the reply, the third cause of action accused Mr. Cho of engaging in a conspiracy to commit fraud, the act, thus potentially exposing him to punitive damages& (Reply at p. 4:10-11.) Indeed, Haywood seeks [p]unitive and exemplary damages in the prayer for relief of the FAC. (FAC, p. 8:10.) Cho also asserts that dismissal of the third cause of action impacted&whether the same factual allegations remain to be litigated - they are not; whether discovery and motion practice have been narrowed - it has been; and the extent to which future litigation expenses and strategy were impacted by the motion -most certainly reduced. (Reply at pp. 4:12-5:2.) The Court agrees with Cho that he achieved a practical benefit from bringing the anti-SLAPP motion. Chos counsel Dilip Vithlani states in his supporting declaration that [i]n connection with the anti-SLAPP motion, I have expended in excess of 16 hours in preparing the anti-SLAPP motion, appearing in person at the hearing on ex parte application to (1) Set aside this courts Tentative Order granting Defendants anti-SLAPP motion and (2) to continue the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion to allow Plaintiff to file her Opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, and the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. (Vithlani Decl., ¶ 8.) Mr. Vithlani further states that [i]n connection with the instant motion for fees, Mr. Cho will accept an award of 10 hours of fees. The hours include preparing and filing this motion, reviewing of the Opposition and preparing a Reply and appearing at the hearing on the instant motion&Costs incurred in connection with the anti-SLAPP are $60.00. (Vithlani Decl., ¶¶ 20-21.) Mr. Vithlanis requested hourly rate is $725.00 per hour. (Vithlani Decl., ¶ 9.) Mr. Vithlanis states that he has been practicing law since January 1999, and his background and experience are set forth in the supporting declaration. (Vithlani Decl., ¶¶ 10-12.) Mr. Vithlani asserts that [b]ased on the Laffey Matrix for 2022, the accepted billing rate for attorneys with my experience in the Los Angeles area is in excess of $900.00 per hour. My rate of $725.00 per hour is well below that range. (Vithlani Decl., ¶ 9.)[1] In the opposition, Haywood asserts that Cho has failed to submit declarations by other attorneys with respect to the rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation& (Oppn at p. 5:20-22.) However, Haywood does not appear to cite to legal authority demonstrating that such declarations are required. Haywood also argues that [t]he Legal Trends Report published annually by Clio, a billing service used by thousands of legal professionals and attorneys found that $344 was the average hourly rate for civil litigation attorneys in California. (Oppn at p. 6:9-11.) However, this assertion is not supported by competent evidence. No declaration was filed in connection with the opposition. The Court finds that Cho has demonstrated that his counsels hourly billing rate is reasonable. In the opposition, Haywood also asserts that Cho has failed to submit any billing statements from Vilthani in order for the Court to determine if fees were reasonably generated. (Oppn at p. 5:22-24.) In the motion, Cho cites to Cruz v. Fusion Buffet, Inc. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 221, 237-238, where the Court of Appeal noted that [t]he declaration of an attorney as to the number of hours worked on a particular case may be sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence of detailed time records. Indeed, sufficient evidence to support an attorney fee award may include [d]eclarations of counsel setting forth the reasonable hourly rate, the number of hours worked and the tasks performed. There is no requirement that an attorney provide time records or billing statements. (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) As discussed, Chos counsel states that he expended in excess of 16 hours in preparing the anti-SLAPP motion, appearing in person at the hearing on ex parte application to (1) Set aside this courts Tentative Order granting Defendants anti-SLAPP motion and (2) to continue the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion to allow Plaintiff to file her Opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, and the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. (Vithlani Decl., ¶ 8.) Chos counsel further states that [i]n connection with the instant motion for fees, Mr. Cho will accept an award of 10 hours of fees. The hours include preparing and filing this motion, reviewing of the Opposition and preparing a Reply and appearing at the hearing on the instant motion. (Vithlani Decl., ¶ 20.) The Court finds that Mr. Vithlanis declaration is sufficient and that the requested time is reasonable. Lastly, Cho states in the notice of motion that he seeks $7,560.00 as fees costs for the instant motion. (Notice of Mot. at p. 2:4.) However, as noted by Haywood and as set forth above, Mr. Vithlani states that [i]n connection with the instant motion for fees, Mr. Cho will accept an award of 10 hours of fees. (Vithlani Decl., ¶ 20.) 10 hours multiplied by the requested hourly rate of $725/hour is $7,250.00. Adding the requested $60.00 in costs to this amount results in a total of $7,310.00, not $7,560.00. Thus, the Court deducts $250.00 from the total amount requested. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Chos motion for attorneys fees and costs is granted in part. The Court awards Cho a total of $18,910.00 in attorneys fees and costs. Cho is to provide notice of this Order. DATED: August 1, 2024 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court [1]Cho notes that [t]he Laffey Matrix is a United States Department of Justice billing matrix that provides billing rates for attorneys at various experience levels in the Washington, D.C., area and can be adjusted to establish comparable billing rates in other areas using data from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Pasternack v. McCullough (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1057, fn. 5.)

Ruling

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. vs. Sells

Jul 29, 2024 |22CV-0200669

U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A. VS. SELLSCase Number: 22CV-0200669This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of proposed judgment. As previouslyordered by this Court, an Amended Proposed Judgement and Declaration have been filed clarifyingthe correct address of the subject property. The proposed judgment will be executed by the Court.No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.VALDEZ VS. FALL RIVER VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION

Ruling

Hull, et al. vs. The Cadle Company, et al.

Aug 01, 2024 |22CV-0200159

HULL, ET AL. VS. THE CADLE COMPANY, ET AL.Case Number: 22CV-0200159Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re:Sanctions (“OSC”) issued on May 17, 2024, to Plaintiffs James Hull and Shirley Hull for failureto abide by California Rule of Court 3.110. Defendant Tri Counties Bank was amended into theComplaint on January 24, 2024. There has been no summons issued for Tri Counties Bank, andthey have not been served. The matter is not at issue. No response to the OSC has been filed.Plaintiff James Hull appeared at the most recent hearing on July 22, 2024, and informed the Courtthat he intended to dismiss this matter. The Court advised Mr. Hull that the Court would vacatethis OSC if the matter was properly dismissed prior to today’s hearing. No request for dismissalhas been filed. Plaintiff remains in violation of CRC 3.110. Sanctions will be imposed in theamount of $250. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions.Tentative Ruling on Motion for Attorney Fees: This action alleging violations of the CaliforniaHomeowner Bill of Rights, wrongful foreclosure, and other causes of action was filed by PlaintiffJames and Shirley Hull on July 14, 2022. Plaintiffs purchased their home in 2006 with a loan fromTri-Counties Bank. BBR Investments LLC bought the loan and deed of trust in August 2016, andcurrently owns the mortgage note and deed of trust. The Cadle Company (“Cadle”) services theloan for BBR Investments LLC. The Cadle Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment wasgranted by this Court on April 15, 2024. Cadle moves now for attorney fees and costs. The motionfor fees and costs is unopposed.Merits: A prevailing party is entitled to costs. CCP § 1032. “Costs” may include attorney’s feesif they are provided by contract. CCP § 1033.5(a)(10). Civil Code § 1717 provides that on anyaction on a contract where the contract provides for attorney’s fees, the prevailing party on thecontract shall be entitled to attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. A prevailing party is definedas the party with a net recovery, a defendant in whose favor a dismissal is entered, a defendantwhen neither side obtained any relief and a defendant as against a plaintiff who do not recoveryany relief against defendant. CCP § 1032.Here, Cadle’s basis for recovery of attorney fees is contractual. The Deed of Trust betweenBorrower James and Shirley Hull, and Lender Tri Counties Bank, attached as Ex. A to the VerifiedAmended Compliant as Ex. 1, provides at p. 9 ¶ 14, for recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs relatedto the Borrower’s default for the purpose of protecting Lender’s interest in Property and Lender’srights under the Deed of Trust. A Loan Modification Agreement was entered into on December14, 2018, by The Cadle Company, servicing for BBR Investments, and James and Shirley Hull.The Agreement provides that it is a modification of the Loan Documents (the Note and Deed toTrust) to the extent it is inconsistent, and the remainder of the terms remain in full force and effect.(Decl. Coleman, Ex. 4, ¶ 15.) The attorney fees provision of the Deed of Trust therefore applieshere, entitling Cadle to attorney fees and costs. Cadle prevailed on a motion for summaryjudgment. Judgment was entered in favor of Cadle and Plaintiffs received no relief. The Courtfinds that Defendant is the prevailing party as defined by CCP § 1032.“[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number ofhours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” PLCM Group, Inc. v.Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095. “A court assessing attorney fees begins with a touchstoneor lodestar figure, based on the ‘careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourlycompensation of each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case.’” Ketchum v. Moses(2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131-1132. In determining the amount of attorney's fees to which alitigant is entitled, an experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional servicesrendered in his or her court. Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 738, 752.Cadle’s Counsel has provided a declaration and detailed billing records claiming 195.5 hoursdefending this suit, including time spent by two experienced attorneys at a rate of $340 per hour,and a less experienced attorney at a rate of $325 per hour. Two billing entries for paralegals at arate of $100 and $125 per hour are also included. Defendant seeks a total of $65,583.50 in attorneyfees. The Court finds Counsel’s time spent and rates are reasonable, with the following exception.The Court notes that the attorney billing records provided as Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of JuneColeman include time spent on The Cadle Company’s discovery motions filed August 11, 2023,and heard on September 11, 2023. The Court’s Order on those Motions, entered on September 14,2023, included an award of sanctions for time spent bringing the Motions and associated costs, toDefendant The Cadle Company against Plaintiffs in the amount of $4,100. The Court declines toaward attorney fees for this same work a second time. The current request for attorney fees willtherefore be reduced by $4,100.00 - the amount previously awarded as sanctions on the discoverymotions. The memorandum of costs details reasonable costs incurred of $6,154.46. TheDeclaration of June Coleman submitted in support of the Statement of Non-Opposition includes arequest for additional costs of $525.75 for filing fees and CourtCall, which appear reasonable andwill be awarded.The Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is GRANTED. The total amount awarded to The CadleCompany is $$68,163.71 in fees and costs. No proposed order has been lodged as required byLocal Rule 5.17(D). Moving party shall prepare the order.

Ruling

CHRISTINA CATANIA vs. LOANCARE, LLC

Jul 26, 2024 |C24-00735

C24-00735CASE NAME: CHRISTINA CATANIA VS. LOANCARE, LLC HEARING IN RE: TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY A PREMLIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT BEISSUEDFILED BY:*TENTATIVE RULING:*Per the Court’s 7/19/24 order this hearing is continued to August 16, 2024, at 9:00a.m.

Ruling

MARTIN TOKICH VS ANDREW M. DANG, ET AL.

Aug 01, 2024 |22AHCV01417

Case Number: 22AHCV01417 Hearing Date: August 1, 2024 Dept: P [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE I. INTRODUCTION Procedural History & Factual Background This case arises from alleged uninhabitable housing conditions at 2841 W. Main St., Alhambra, California 91801 (the Premises). On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff Martin Tokich (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Andrew M. Dang (Andrew), Melvin M. Dang (Melvin) and Northstar Real Estate Group, Inc. (Northstar, together Defendants). The initial Complaint alleged the following nine causes of action as against all Defendants: (1) breach of warranty of habitability under CCP §1941.1 and (2) CCP §1942.4, (3) breach of warranty of habitability under CCP §17920.3, (4) negligence premises liability, (5) nuisance, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) breach of contract, (8) unfair business practices under B&P Code § 17200 et seq., and (9) fraudulent concealment. A First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on July 12, 2023. Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 26, 2024, which is scheduled to be heard on October 3, 2024. The motion now before the Court is Defendants Motion for an Order Continuing Trial and All Related Dates (the Motion). The Motion was filed on July 8, 2024, and on July 24, 2024 Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. II. DISCUSSION Legal Standard California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subdivision (c) states that although disfavored, the trial date may be continued for good cause, which includes (without limitation): (1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circ*mstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial. (Id., Rule 3.1332(c).)¿¿¿ The court may also consider the following factors: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party; (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court's calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circ*mstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1332(d).) Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance. (In re Marriage of Falcone &¿Fyke¿(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.) Analysis Defendants primary contention is that the current trial date of October 15, 2024, and the current date for the hearing on summary judgment of October 3, 2024 violate Code Civ. Proc. §437c(a)(3) which provides that the motion for summary judgment shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of trial. Defendants contend a timely motion for summary judgment was filed and served on June 26, 2024, more than the 75 days before the appointed hearing as articulated in Code Civ. Proc. §437c(a)(2). Defendants request a 90-day continuance to allow for the motion for summary judgment to be heard. As noted in Sentry Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, and Polibrid Coatings, Inc., v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 920, 923, being heard on summary judgment is a statutory right, and the Court cannot violate such a right. Although the hearing is just prior to trial, Defendants are entitled to have the motion heard and any reasonable time that may be needed for additional briefing or arguments. The seven court days between the hearing for the motion and the trial are insufficient. As good cause exists, as no opposition has been filed, as no party will suffer prejudice for a continuance, and as the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, the instant motion to continue trial is granted. III. CONCLUSION Defendants' Motion for an Order Continuing Trial and All Related Dates is GRANTED. At the hearing on the motion, the Court will select a date at least 90 days from todays date which will accommodate counsels respective calendars. Defendants to give notice of this ruling. Dated: August 1, 2024 JARED D. MOSES JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I. INTRODUCTION Procedural History & Factual Background This case arises from alleged uninhabitable housing conditions at 2841 W. Main St., Alhambra, California 91801 (the Premises). On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff Martin Tokich (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Andrew M. Dang (Andrew), Melvin M. Dang (Melvin) and Northstar Real Estate Group, Inc. (Northstar, together Defendants). The initial Complaint alleged the following nine causes of action as against all Defendants: (1) breach of warranty of habitability under CCP §1941.1 and (2) CCP §1942.4, (3) breach of warranty of habitability under CCP §17920.3, (4) negligence premises liability, (5) nuisance, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) breach of contract, (8) unfair business practices under B&P Code § 17200 et seq., and (9) fraudulent concealment. A First Amended Complaint (FAC) was filed on July 12, 2023. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on May 13, 2024. On July 3, 2024, the Court denied leave to amend. The motion now before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of that denial (the Motion). Defendants oppose the Motion; no reply has been filed. II. DISCUSSION Legal Standard A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer new or different facts, circ*mstances, or law which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion....A motion for reconsideration will be denied absent a strong showing of diligence." (Forrest v. Dept. Of Corps. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202, disapproved on other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1172. See also Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1199 (noting that 1992 amendment to CCP §1008 tightened diligence requirements). [M]otions to reconsider allow the trial court to consider new facts or law relevant to its order&. (Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 963, 973 (dictum). [Emphasis added.] Cf. also Wiz Tech., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 1, 17-18 (no relevant basis for reconsideration shown). Disagreement with a ruling is not a new fact that will support the granting of a motion for reconsideration. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) Analysis In their moving papers, Plaintiff correctly notes that the first-stated reason the Court denied the Motion for Leave to File the SAC was because in the proposed SAC, Plaintiff did not state whether the 9th cause of action for fraudulent concealment in the FAC is to be deleted and replaced with a proposed cause of action for violation of Government Code §§12921 and 12927 as required by CRC Rule 3.1324(a). Plaintiff brings to the Courts attention that the omission of this cause of action for fraudulent concealment was because of a prior ruling made on September 19, 2023 by the Honorable Judge Margaret Oldendorf on a demurrer and motion to strike, which sustained demurrer without leave to amend as to the cause of action for fraudulent concealment. Therefore, this procedural basis for the Courts ruling was in error. Bringing Judge Oldendorfs prior order to this Courts attention is the type of new fact or circ*mstance contemplated by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a). However, the Court also denied the motion for leave to file the SAC because (1) the motion was untimely and (2) there was prejudice to the Defendants. (July 3, 2024 Minute Order, pg. 3-4.) The motion for leave was filed on May 13, 2024, 16 months after the initial Complaint that initiated the case. Trial was scheduled for October 15, 2024. In their motion for leave, Plaintiff argued that the new information that prompted the SAC came to light during an April 10, 2024 deposition of Plaintiff. However, it took more than a month for the motion for leave to be filed. The law is well settled that a long-deferred presentation of the proposed amendment without a showing of excuse for the delay is itself a significant factor to uphold the trial court's denial of the amendment.'"]; Estate of Murphy (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 304, 311, ["Where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party is indicated, the trial court's exercise of discretion in denying a proposed amendment should not be disturbed."] Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613.) In opposing the instant Motion to Reconsider, Defendants argue that (1) Plaintiff presents no new or different facts and (2) Defendants will suffer prejudice. Given that Defendants have moved this Court to continue the trial into 2025, which the Court has tentatively granted, the Court concludes that this continuance effectively resolves the timeliness issue and greatly reduces the possibility of prejudice to Defendants. Defendants may have to conduct additional discovery and incur additional costs. However, Plaintiff contends that prejudice can be mitigated by Plaintiff offering depositions at any time without statutory notice, agreeing to advance the motion for summary judgment, and agreeing to an amendment to the motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that these measures are sufficient and that the granting of Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration will be contingent upon Plaintiff following through on these offers. Failure to do so may result in the Court looking favorably upon a motion to strike the newly added causes of action. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. Defendants to file their answer within 20 days. Dated: August 1, 2024 JARED D. MOSES JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Document

John Trojan v. Babylon Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806178/2024

Document

Antonino Pellegrino v. Islip Town Of

Jul 29, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |804829/2024

Document

Xinxin Wang v. Babylon Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806196/2024

Document

Bank Of America, N.A. v. George Kennedy a/k/a George W. Kennedy, Patricia Kennedy, Dennis Kennedy

Aug 11, 2017 |Thomas Whelan |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |615664/2017

Document

Camille Mitarotondo v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806462/2024

Document

Oct 23, 2017 |MICHAEL A. GAJDOS |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |621651/2019

Document

Thomas Aquilina v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 30, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |806627/2024

Document

Christopher Lucas v. Riverhead Town Of

Jul 29, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |805093/2024