Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV32917, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV32917 Hearing Date: February 15, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel Tepper (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Skinny Labs, Inc. dba Spin (“Spin”), City of Los Angeles (“City”), and Does 1-100 for negligence, negligence under Government Code sections 815.2 and 820, and public nuisance. Attorneys Dean Ogrin and Daniel M. McGee of McGee, Lerer & Associates represented Plaintiff when he filed the action.
On October 2, 2020, Spin filed an answer.
On November 4, 2020, the City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Spin and Roes 1-10 for express indemnity, breach of contract, equitable indemnity, comparative indemnity, and declaratory relief.
On March 25, 2021, the Court dismissed the City’s cross-complaint without prejudice at the City’s request.
On November 19, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel.
On January 28, 2022, Attorneys Aidin D. Ghavimi and John Vafa of Starpoint LC (“Starpoint”) filed a substitution of attorney form stating they were Plaintiff’s new legal representatives.
On June 30, 2022, Starpoint filed a notice of lien stating that, as Plaintiff’s former counsel, it was asserting a lien in the amount of $21,819.18 on the proceeds or satisfaction of judgment, award, or settlement in Plaintiff’s favor.
On July 12, 2022, Attorney Ariella E. Perry of Wilshire Law Firm (“Perry”) filed a substitution of attorney stating that she was Plaintiff’s new legal representative.
On September 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement.
On September 7, 2023, Perry informed the Court that all parties except Plaintiff had signed a release. The Court continued the hearing to allow Plaintiff to sign the release.
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement.
On November 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form substituting himself as a self-represented litigant in place of Perry.
On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff withdrew the motion to enforce a settlement agreement.
On December 27, 2023, Perry filed a notice of lien stating that “Wilshire Law Firm has a lien on this case for attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $181,443.89.”
On December 28, 2023, Spin filed a notice of bankruptcy filing and suggestion of stay. Spin stated that it filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 relief on December 20, 2023, staying the case against Spin and “any act that would affect the property of the estate . . . .”
On January 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash the notice of lien filed by Perry and Wilshire Law Firm, to be heard on February 15, 2024. In the motion, Plaintiff stated that he wished to have the Court hear the motion even if he could not appear for the hearing. On February 1, 2024, Perry and Wilshire Law Firm filed an opposition. On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a response to the opposition.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTY’S AND COUNSEL’S REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to quash the notice of lien filed by Perry and Wilshire Law Firm.
Perry and Wilshire Law Firm ask the Court to deny the motion.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues the Court should quash the notice of lien because the attorneys of Wilshire Law Firm, including Perry, engaged in misconduct and possible malpractice while representing him.
In response, Perry and Wilshire Law Firm deny that they
engaged in misconduct and assert that (1) a motion to quash is the incorrect
procedural vehicle to challenge the notice of lien and (2) the case is stayed
due to Spin’s bankruptcy filing. Perry
and Wilshire Law Firm provide no legal argument to support their assertions.
Spin's notice of bankruptcy filing states that the automatic bankruptcy stay applies to the case against Spin and to
“Appellate courts have consistently held that the trial court in the underlying action has no jurisdiction to determine the existence or validity of an attorney's lien on the judgment. [Citations.] The trial court does have fundamental jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties. Nevertheless, because the attorney is not a party to the underlying action and has no right to intervene, the trial court acts in excess of its jurisdiction when it purports to determine whether the attorney is entitled to foreclose a lien on the judgment. [Citations.] Nor can the court entertain a motion to terminate the lien. [Citation.] After the client obtains a judgment, the attorney must bring a separate, independent action against the client to establish the existence of the lien, to determine the amount of the lien, and to enforce it. [Citations.] An order within the underlying action purporting to affect an attorney's lien is void. [Citation.]” (Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp. (2002) 99 Cal.App. 4th 1168, 1173.)
The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion to quash the notice of lien filed by Plaintiff Daniel Tepper.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.