Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV01699, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 23PSCV01699 Hearing Date: December 8, 2023 Dept: O
Tentative Ruling
ROBINDALE VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC’s
APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice.
Should
Counsel provide the information sought before the hearing, the court will grant
the application (with no need to file a new application).
Background
This case pertains to HOA. Plaintiff, Robindale Villas
Condominium Association, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against
Defendant Arlene L. Danganan: Defendant has failed to pay all regular
assessments, late fees, interest, attorney’s fees, and collection costs, and
presently owe $71,732.80. Assessments will continue to be levied against
Defendant every month in an amount of no less than $353.00 per month.
On June 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed suit for:
1.
Foreclosure Of Assessment Lien;
2.
Collection Of Delinquent Assessment Debt (Civ. Code, §
5650)
3.
Breach Of Contract
4.
Violation Of Equitable Servitudes;
5.
Common Counts: Open Book Account; And
6.
Common Counts: Account Stated.
On August 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Lis Pendens.
On October 4, 2023, default was entered against Defendant.
Discussion
Plaintiff seeks that the Notice of Assessment Lien recorded
on 10/13/22 be foreclosed such that the property will be sold. The proceeds of
said sale be applied to the payment of the expense of sale and next to the
amount due Plaintiff, and that the balance remaining, if any, be paid over to
Defendant.
Here, there are two defects with the application.
First, the court requests a revised proposed order.
(Of note: Proposed judgments are to be provided on a JUD-100 form.)
The proposed order indicates that in addition to the sale of
the property and disbursement of proceeds to Plaintiff, “It is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall recover: (a) Damages in the sum of $70,793.30; (b) Attorneys fees in the sum of $3,250.00;
and (c) Costs in the sum of $2,051.85.”
(Judgment, emphasis added.) That language essentially allows for double
recovery (i.e., proceeds from the sale and an additional, separate
judgment from entry of default judgment).
Second, the court takes issue with attorney fees/certain
legal costs.
a. Upon refiling the application, the court requests
Plaintiff’s Counsel clarify its billing. (Jahanian Decl., Ex. A.) Specifically, there appear to be duplicate
charges such as a “BK search” and a “title search;” it is unclear the need for
multiple searches, even if on different dates.
b. Additionally, Counsel charges $360/hour. Absent an
explanation as to why $360 is reasonable with such relatively simple facts and
whether $360/hour is the prevailing market rate for attorneys in its area, the
court reduces the hourly rate to $300/hour.
Therefore, in sum, the court requests a revised proposed
order (on a JUD-100 form) and attorney fees/costs to be modified.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the application is denied without
prejudice.