Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 20SMCV00531, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 20SMCV00531, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SMCV00531 Hearing Date: October 24, 2023 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Mashian Law Group v. R Chapter 3, LLC, Case No. 20SMCV00531

Hearing Date October 20, 2023 continued to October 24, 2023

Mashian Law/Mashian’s Motion for Post Judgment Attorney’s Fees

Cohen and R Chapter 3, LLC’s Motion to Tax Costs

On December 2, 2021 cross-defendant Mashian obtained a judgment for $56,153.99 in attorney’s fees and costs (Mashian judgment) against cross-complainants R Chapter 3, LLC (R3) and Cohen. On February 3, 2023 plaintiff/cross-defendant Mashian Law Group (MLG) obtained a judgment of $75,000 (MLG judgment) against defendant RC3. Mashian seeks $17,575 in post-judgment attorney’s fees and $4,256.23 in post judgment costs. MLG seeks $4,250 in post-judgment attorney’s fees and $1,109.05 in post judgment costs.

R3 and Cohen oppose the attorney’s fees requests and move to tax costs filed in connection with both judgments.

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §685.40, reasonable attorney’s fees incurred to enforce a judgment are recoverable if the underlying judgment contained an attorney’s fees award. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §685.040. Both the Mashian and MLG judgments included attorney’s fee awards. See Stanton decl., exhs. 1 & 2. Per CCP §685.40, Mashian and MLG are entitled to attorney’s fees incurred enforcing the judgment.

R3 and Cohen argue it was improper for the court to enter separate judgments for Mashian and MLG, arguing this violated the one judgment rule, rendering both judgments void and improper as the basis for post-judgment fees.

The one judgment rule is a “principle of appellate practice that prohibits review of intermediate rulings by appeal until final resolution of the case.” Kinsmith Financial Corp. v. Gilroy (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 447, 452. The one judgment rule does not apply when a judgment is entered that leaves no issue to be determined as to one party. Nguyen v. Calhoun (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 428, 437.

The December 2, 2021 Mashian judgment resolved all issues as to Mashian. He is not a plaintiff in the complaint; he was named as a cross-defendant by R3 and Cohen. On April 14, 2021, the court granted Mashian’s motion for summary adjudication as to all causes of action against him in the cross-complaint, resolving all claims against him. Since there were no remaining issues as to Mashian, the 12/2/2021 entry of judgment was proper under Nguyen to enter separate judgments for Mashian and MLG. Cohen and R3’s arguments based on the one final judgment rule fail.

MLG and Cohen also argue the Mashian judgment does not include attorney’s fees, so Mashian is not entitled to post-judgment fees. After prevailing on his MSA, Mashian moved for attorney’s fees under the parties’ retainer agreement. The court determined the retainer’s attorney fee provision applied to the cross-complaint and awarded Mashian contractual fees per Code of Civ. Proc. §1717. See 11/12/2021 minute order, pg. 2. That ruling was incorporated into the December 12, 2021 judgment, which included a fee award. Mashian is entitled to post-judgment attorney’s fees.

Cohen and R3’s attorney Waecker states both judgments were satisfied by August 2023 at the latest. Waecker decl. ¶4. He identifies a $65,000 payment on July 21, 2023 and a pair of payments totaling $75,000 on August 23, 2023. The Mashian parties do not dispute receiving these amounts, but state that, after including interest and post judgment fees/costs, the judgments are not yet fully satisfied. The court reviewed the calculations of interest and credits underlying the declaration of Mashian’s attorney Stanton and found they are accurate. See Stanton reply decl. ¶¶2-16. As the judgments have not been fully satisfied, post-judgment attorney’s fees are still available.

Finally, Cohen and R3 argue the enforcement fees requested by the Mashian parties are excessive. They object to two specific fee categories –1.4 hours spent preparing for a judgment debtor examination conducted by an attorney other than Stanton, and 3.95 hours spent preparing for and attending a mandatory settlement conference (MSC), which Waecker contends was unrelated to judgment enforcement.

Time spent on a judgment debtor exam is recoverable as a post-judgment enforcement fee. The Cohen ORAP was conducted by attorney Daly. Stanton reply decl. ¶17. Fees Daly incurred are recoverable, as they represent attorney time spent enforcing a judgment. MSC fees are recoverable since much of the September 1, 2022 MSC was dedicated to negotiating payment of the Mashian judgment. Fees incurred preparing for and attending the MSC constitute recoverable post-judgment enforcement fees. Stanton decl. ¶15.

GRANTED. Mashian awarded $17,575 in post judgment attorney’s fees, MLG awarded $4,250 in post-judgment fees.

Motion to Tax Costs

On August 11, 2023, the Mashian parties filed two memorandums of costs. The memorandum associated with the MLG judgment seeks $1,109; the memorandum associated with the Mashian judgment seeks $4,256.23. R3 and Cohen move to tax.

There are three categories of costs under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1033.5: allowable, disallowable and discretionary. If a party seeks allowable costs, the objecting party has the burden of proof of demonstrating they are not reasonable and necessary; requesting party has the burden of proof for discretionary costs. Ladas v. Cal State Automobile Ass’n. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 774.

R3 and Cohen argue three filing fees incurred in connection with the MLG judgment “appear to be unnecessary and cumulative,” and the memorandum of costs fails to explain why the first fee was $83.54, while the second two fees are $21.77 and $20.74. An invoice from One Legal confirms the amounts. Stanton decl., exh. 7. Filing fees are allowable costs under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1033.5, and the objecting parties fail to meet their burden to show they were unnecessary.

R3 and Cohen object to $750 for a title report. The Mashian parties’ opposition to the motion does not explain why the report was a necessary post-judgment cost. A title report is not a specifically allowable cost under §1033.5. As a discretionary cost, the Mashian parties have the burden to show it was reasonable and necessary and fail to carry that burden. The $750 is taxed.

Finally, R3 and Cohen object to ORAP fees incurred in connection with the Mashian judgment, arguing the fees were unnecessary since Waecker agreed to voluntarily schedule Cohen’s debtor’s exam. Stanton states the offer to produce Cohen was made July 21, 2023 after costs were already incurred, including those associated with the August 5, 2022 ORAP. Stanton supplemental decl. ¶7. This is supported by invoices and copies of Waecker’s July and August 2023 letters offering to produce Cohen voluntarily. Stanton supplemental decl. ¶7, exhibits 11-4. The ORAP costs are recoverable.

The motion to tax costs is GRANTED in part as to the MLG memorandum, which will be taxed by $750 representing an inadequately justified title report fee. The motion is DENIED as to the Mashian memorandum.