Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV36715, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV36715    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     February 20, 2025                             TRIAL DATE:  Disposed

CASE:                         People of the State of California ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV36715

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Silver Bird Auto Leasing LLC; The X-Law Group, PC; and Filippo Marchino

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff People of the State of California ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC

I.          INTRODUCTION

On October 5, 2021, plaintiff Health & Yuen, APC [1] (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against defendants Silver Bird Auto Leasing LLC, The X-Law Firm, and Fillipo Marchino (collectively, “Defendants”).¿ Subsequently, on October 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Verified First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants, alleging a single cause of action for Violation of the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (Ins. Code § 1871 et seq.) based on violation of Penal Code section 550.

On February 26, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.  The court granted the motion on May 14, 2024.

On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration.  The court denied the motion on September 6, 2024. 

On October 28, 2024, the court entered judgment in Defendants’ favor.

On November 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the court’s May 14, 2024, order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

On December 26, 2024, Defendants filed this Motion for Attorney’s Fees.

On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

On February 11, 2025, Defendants replied.

II.        DISCUSSION

The court is inclined to stay this action on its own motion.  Generally, “the filing of a notice of appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to award attorney fees as costs post trial.  Although a prevailing party at trial may not be the prevailing party after an appeal, it has been held that a motion for attorney fees is not premature despite the filing of a notice of appeal.”  (Bankes v. Lucas (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 365, 368.)  Nevertheless, the court “has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.”  (St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. AmerisourceBergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 7 (quotations omitted).)

Here, the court finds that a stay would accommodate the ends of justice.  Unlike other fee motions, a prevailing defendant in an IFPA case must show the claim was “clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought primarily for purposes of harassment.” (Ins. Code, § 1871.7, subd. (g)(5).)  Plaintiff’s appeal, if successful, would directly undermine such a finding.[2] A stay will  maintain the status quo.

III.       CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, the court orders the proceedings stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s appeal.  Defendants’ motion for attorney fees is taken off calendar.  The court sets a Status Conference re: Appeal for June 20, 2025 at 9:00 AM.  Following the perfecting of the appeal, and if necessary, the court will discuss hearing dates with counsel to re-calendar Defendants’ fee motion.

            Clerk of the court to give notice.

Dated:   February 20, 2025