Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 20STCV08119, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV08119 Hearing Date: May 11, 2023 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: May 11, 2023
CASE NUMBER: 20STCV08119
CASE NAME: Curtis Morrison v. Julie Ann Goldberg, et
al.
MOVING PARTIES: Defendants, Julie Ann Goldberg, and Goldberg &
Associates, PC (“Defendants”)
OPPOSING PARTY: Plaintiff, Curtis Morrison
TRIAL DATE: None
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Defendants’
Motion for Attorney’s Fees
OPPOSITION: April
17, 2023–Untimely Filed. Opposition was due April 10, 2023. (C.C.P., § 1005)
REPLY: April
14, 2023; Supplemental filed May 4, 2023
TENTATIVE:
Defendants’ motion is denied. Plaintiff is to give notice.
Background
This action arises from the employment of Curtis Morrison
(“Plaintiff”) with Defendants, Julie Ann Goldberg (“Goldberg”) and Goldberg
& Associates, PC (“Goldberg PC”). Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants employed him from July 2, 2018 to January 18, 2018.
According to the Complaint, Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff the
correct wages and failed to reimburse him for business expenditures on various
occasions. Additionally, Defendants allegedly monitored Plaintiff through
microphones, cameras, and other devices without his consent, which caused him
substantial emotional distress. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants required
him to work overtime and weekend hours with the promise that such work would be
compensated through a year-end bonus but that he was never compensated in this
fashion.
Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed February 28, 2020 alleges the
following causes of action: (1) failure to reimburse, (2) failure to timely
page wages, (3) breach of contract, (4) fraudulent inducement/false promises,
(5) intrusion into private affairs, (6) intentional infliction of emotional
distress, (7) unfair business practices in violation of Business and
Professions Code §17200.
On February 11, 2021,
Plaintiff filed a proof of service as to service on Goldberg PC (the “January
POS”). The January POS indicates that Goldberg PC was allegedly served on
January 8, 2021, by substituted service. Service was completed by leaving
documents with “BIL “DOE” – Person in Charge of Office at 14370 Ventura Blvd,
Sherman Oaks, California 91423 and thereafter by mailing copies of the summons
and complaint to this address. The January POS describes “DOE” as a middle
eastern male, approximately 25 years old, 6’1, with brown curly hair. On April
5, 2021, the court granted Defendants’ motions to quash.
On October 21, 2022, the
court granted Goldberg PC’s motion to quash service of summons and ordered the
Complaint dismissed without prejudice.
Defendants now move for
attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $22,825.00 and $1,358.77
respectively, pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5. Plaintiff opposes the motion.
Plaintiff’s opposition was initially untimely, as a
timely opposition was due April 10, 2023. (CCP §§ 1005(b), 1013(c).) The court
has the discretion to not consider this opposition in making its ruling. (Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300(d).) However, in light of the circumstances
and equities between the parties, the court exercises its discretion in
considering the opposition.
On April 21, 2023, the court continued the initial
hearing on this motion, and Defendant was given the opportunity to file a
Supplemental Reply brief in response to Plaintiff’s untimely opposition. The
motion now comes for hearing.
Discussion
I.
Legal
Standard
Pursuant to CCP § 1033.5(a)(10)(B)-(C),
attorney’s fees are recoverable as costs when authorized by “statute” or “law.”
California follows the “American
rule,” pursuant to which litigants ordinarily pay their own attorney
fees. (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512,
516.) Thus, a request for attorney fees must be based on either a
statutory or contractual provision authorizing their
recovery. (See CCP § 1021.) Lab. Code § 218.5 provides in
relevant part, “[i]n any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe
benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall
award reasonable attorney s fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party
to the action requests attorney s fees and costs upon the initiation of the
action. However, if the prevailing party in the court action is not an
employee, attorney s fees and costs shall be awarded pursuant to this section
only if the court finds that the employee brought the court action in bad
faith.” Bad faith is to be determined by a subjective test. (USS-POSCO
Industries v. Case (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 197, 222 [applying the bad faith
standard under the similarly-worded CLRA statute].)
II.
Whether Defendant is the Prevailing Party, and whether
Plaintiff brought this Complaint in bad faith
Defendants contend first
they are the prevailing party as dismissal was entered in their favor pursuant
to CCP § 1032. (Motion, 5.) Further, Defendants contend the Complaint was
brought in bad faith pursuant to Arave v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith, Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 525. (Motion, 5-6.) Further,
Defendants contend Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and in bad faith, because the
declaration of Goldberg “offers several pieces of evidence that contradict Ms.
Morrison’s [sic] allegations.” (Motion, 6.)
In opposition, Plaintiff
asserts:
“In this case, there has not been a determination on
the merits of the case. Defendant has continually avoided service despite
Plaintiff’s thousands of dollars spends on numerous attempts at serving
Defendants. Defendants were still knowledgeable about this case as evidenced by
their multiple motions to quash. As a result of Plaintiff’s inability to serve
Defendants, this court has dismissed the claim without prejudice. Plaintiff has
not had his opportunity to be heard in court and this Court has made no
determination about the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.
...
Julie Goldberg maintains a business in Los Angeles
County. She employed the plaintiff at this location. Julie Goldberg avoided
services at the business address. She maintains no proper agent of process for
this business. During the litigation Goldberg stated under penalty of perjury
that she was amenable to service in Michigan but when Plaintiff attempted
service in Michigan, service was refused.
Now Ms. Goldberg attempts to argue that she properly
paid all wages owed by presenting evidence after the case was dismissed and
making additional allegations against Mr. Morrison which are not proper as part
of a fee petition. Ms. Goldberg should not be reimbursed for intentional
evasion of service in this matter.
...
By Defendants filing their motion for attorneys’ fees,
they are submitting to the jurisdiction of this Court by asking this court for
a determination on the merits of whether Plaintiff brought this case in bad
faith. Further, the Defendants are effectively attempting to litigate this case
through their motion for attorney fees by including self-serving declarations
and alleged evidence that defend their actions and argue that the Plaintiff’s
case is frivolous. Defendants’ motion for attorney fees contests the merits of
Plaintiff’s case.” (Opposition, 4-6.)
In the Supplemental
Reply, Defendants first assert that this court has the jurisdiction and the
discretion to entertain this attorney fees motion. (S.Reply, 3-5, 7-8.)
Defendants contend:
“Ms. Goldberg never evaded service. Plaintiff and his
attorney just did not know what they were doing. Plaintiff (who is an attorney)
hired an attorney based out of Arizona to try to serve Michigan-based
Defendants, yet the most recent motion to quash revealed that Plaintiff served
Ms. Goldberg’s tenant in Los Angeles, and filed a proof of service alleging
that Ms. Goldberg was served. Even if Ms. Goldberg was evading service (which
she was not) there is no duty that a defendant must concede service when it was
improper.” (S.Reply, 4-5.)
Importantly, Defendants
then contend Plaintiff’s claims were brought in bad faith as evinced by the
“clearly” “false allegation[s]” contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. (S.Reply,
6-7.) However, what this bad faith analysis asks this court to do is to engage
with the pleadings, here the Complaint only, to determine whether the pleadings
themselves are insufficient enough to show a lack of foundation in bringing
these claims, or sufficient bad faith in bringing these claims while knowing
they had no merit. The court cannot engage in such predictive analysis, absent
a determination on the nature of those pleadings themselves. While Defendants
ask this court to determinatively conclude Plaintiff’s allegations run contrary
to the claims pled in the Complaint, doing so would mean a revival of an attack
on a pleading when this matter has already been dismissed without prejudice. “Plaintiff
has not had his opportunity to be heard in court and this Court has made no
determination about the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.” (Opposition, 4.) How can
this court establish that Plaintiff’s claims conclusively lacked merit from the
beginning, when the court has not looked to the merits of the pleading at all?
The court agrees with
Plaintiff and finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden to
demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims objectively lacked foundation from the
inception of the case, were maintained unreasonably, or were without merit.
Specifically, the court
accepts Plaintiff’s assertion that the merits of this case have not been heard,
and Defendants’ attempts to now litigate the allegations of the pleadings in an
attorney fees motion are unavailing. If Defendants sought to disprove
Plaintiff’s claims, it was incumbent upon them to accept service, if Plaintiff
was able to successfully effectuate service, and present themselves before this
court through responsive pleadings. They failed to accept jurisdiction under
this court on several occasions, and now cannot avail themselves of the
jurisdiction of this court in being awarded attorney fees for work done which
was not reflected in the pleadings and captions of papers filed in this matter.
(Opp., 7.) The court’s ruling on
Defendants’ motions to quash service do not demonstrate that Plaintiff’s
Complaint was defective on its face and thus, does not constitute notice that
Plaintiff’s claims were maintained unreasonably going forward.
Having found that
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants were not frivolous, unreasonable or
maintained in bad faith, Defendants’ motion is denied. Thus, the court does not
address the remainder of the parties arguments regarding the reasonableness of
Defendants’ requested fees.
Conclusion
Defendants’ motion is denied. Plaintiff