Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 20LBCV00201, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20LBCV00201    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: S27

1.     Complaint

Plaintiffs, Kamran Ghadimi, M.D. and Advanced Pain Treatment Medical Center filed this action against Defendant, Eileen Talbott for damages arising out of Defendant’s alleged failure to pay bills in connection with Plaintiffs’ care and treatment of Defendant. 

2.     Settlement

Defendant made a settlement offer, and Plaintiffs’ attorney accepted.  However, Plaintiffs’ attorney had been unaware that Ghadimi was intending to compromise the medical treatment claims (his own claims), but not the facility claims (APTMC’s claims).  Thereafter, the settlement unraveled. 

3.     Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint

On 11/17/122, the Court heard and granted Defendant’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint for breach of the parties’ settlement agreement. 

On 11/18/22, Defendant filed her cross-complaint.  On 12/20/22, Plaintiffs’ attorney filed a Declaration of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension.  On 12/28/22, at Defendant’s request, the Clerk entered Plaintiffs’ defaults on the cross-complaint.  The Clerk did so despite the declaration, as Defendant’s proof of service showed service of the cross-complaint on Plaintiffs on 11/18/22 by electronic submission, and therefore the declaration was not timely filed.

4.     Motion to Vacate Default

On 2/16/23, the Court heard and denied Cross-Defendants’ motion for relief from default.  The Court found Cross-Defendants failed to show their default was entered as a result of their attorney’s negligence or mistake, but instead it was entered as a result of their attorney’s calculated litigation strategy.

5.     Default Judgment

On 3/02/23, the Court held a default judgment prove-up hearing.  The Court found in favor of Cross-Complainant, finding a binding settlement agreement was entered into, which fully resolves the issues presented by way of the complaint.  Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their complaint in light of the finding. 

6.     Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Defendants and Cross-Complainants seek to recover the attorneys’ fees they spent enforcing the settlement agreement by way of their cross-complaint.  The parties’ settlement agreement contains an attorneys’ fees clause, which Cross-Complainants contend entitle them to recover their attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the proceedings.

The Court has received Plaintiffs’ and Cross-Defendants’ Objection to the motion, wherein Plaintiffs argue Defendants are precluded from seeking attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with a default judgment unless they obtain those fees and costs in connection with the original default judgment. 

Pursuant to Garcia v. Politis (2011) 192 Cal.App.4^th 1474, 1479, which Cross-Defendants rely upon in their objection, a plaintiff who obtains a judgment by default by written declaration must seek fees in connection with the default judgment papers and cannot seek them by way of post-judgment motion.  Garcia relies upon CRC 3.1800, which governs default judgments “on declarations.”  In this case, default judgment was entered after a prove-up hearing, not on written declarations.  It is therefore not clear if Garcia applies to this case.  Notably, Cross-Complainant never filed a request for entry of default judgment, but instead proceeded only by way of prove-up hearing after the motion to vacate default was denied.

In light of these distinctions, the Court finds attorneys’ fees are appropriate by way of noticed motion where, as here, the case proceeded to a default prove-up hearing.  The motion is therefore granted.  The Court finds the amount of fees sought, $5425, is both objectively reasonable and fully supported by the Declaration of Counsel, Jeremy J. Alberts.  The Court awards attorneys’ fees in connection with the default judgment in the amount of $5425, and the Court will add the fees to the judgment by way of interlineation. 

Cross-Complainant is ordered to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.