Judge: Colin Leis, Case: BC500304, Date: 2025-01-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC500304    Hearing Date: January 28, 2025    Dept: 74

Red & White Distribution, LLC v. Osteroid Enterprises, LLC

Defendant Tatiana Sedycheva and Osteroid Enterprises, LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees.

            California Code of Civil Procedure permits a judgment debtor to serve a demand upon the judgment creditor requiring that the judgment creditor file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 724.050, 724.110.)  In 2022, Judgement Debtors Red & White Distribution, LLC filed a Motion for Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction (§ 724.050) or in the Alternative for Partial Satisfaction of Judgement (§ 724.110).  Judgment Creditors Tatiana Sedycheva and Osteroid Enterprises, LLC’s prevailed on the “full satisfaction of judgement” portion of the Motion when the court found Judgment Debtors still owed $63,184 under the judgment. Judgment Creditor seeks its attorney’s fees as the prevailing party on Judgment Debtor’s motion for acknowledge of full satisfaction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 724.080.)

Judgment Debtors argue that the definition of “prevailing party” should apply a pragmatic test, “namely whether a party prevailed on a practical level by achieving its main litigation objectives.  (Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761, 773.)  Judgment Debtors argue that the pragmatic test should consider not only the outcome of the acknowledgment of full satisfaction but also the outcome of the acknowledgement of partial satisfaction.

 When interpreting the meaning of legislation, the Court examines the “language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning and considering them in the context of the statutory framework.”  (Barnes v. Dept. of Corrections (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 126, 131.) Judgment Creditors note two different statutory chapters apply, Chapter 1 for Full Satisfaction (§ 724.010 et seq) and Chapter 2 for Partial Satisfaction (§ 724.110 et seq). Only Chapter 1 provides for attorney’s fees. (§ 724.080) The Acknowledgment of Full Satisfaction has a binary outcome: fully satisfied or not fully satisfied.  The Court found that Judgment Debtors had not fully satisfied the judgment.  Therefore, the Judgment Creditors were the prevailing party under the attorney’s fee statute contained in Chapter 1.  

            Judgment Creditors request an award of $60,000 in attorney’s fees.  In support of the request for fees, Judgment Creditors provide an itemized billing invoice which is prima facie evidence that the fees were necessarily incurred.  (Mendlin Decl., Ex. 21; see Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682.)  Judgment Debtors do not challenge the validity of the fees.  Therefore, the Court awards Judgment Creditors $60,000 in attorney’s fees.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $60,000.

            Defendant to give notice.