Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00251, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00251    Hearing Date: May 8, 2024    Dept: 26

Zazueta v. Reihaneh, et al.

MOTION TO RECOVER NON-ATTORNEY FEES

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Richard R. Zazueta’s Amended Motion to Recover Non-Attorney Fees is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Richard Zazueta (“Plaintiff”), in propria persona, filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Sarraf Shirazi Reihaneh (“Defendant”) on January 13, 2021. Defendant answered the Complaint on March 1, 2022. On June 9, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and Requests for Sanctions against Plaintiff. (Minute Order, 06/09/22.) On November 1, 2022, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions. (Minute Order, 11/01/22.)

The action came for trial on September 14, 2023, at which time the parties stipulated that Defendant is liable for damages. (Minute Order, 09/14/23.) Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $3,792.41. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Amended Motion for Non-Attorney Fees on March 15, 2024. An additional memorandum was filed by Plaintiff on April 29, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Motion appears to seek recovery of costs Plaintiff incurred prosecuting this action.

First, the Motion is not accompanied by a proper proof of service; the proofs of service are not attested to by the person who served the papers. (Motion, filed 03/15/24, p. 5; Memo, filed 04/29/24, p. 15.) Failure to give notice of a motion is not only a violation of the statutory requirements but of the due process owed to Defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005; Jones v. Otero (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 754, 757.)

Second, the Motion cite to “Rule #1717.” (Motion, filed 03/15/24, pp. 1-2.) apparently meaning California Civil Code Section 1717, but this does not authorize the specified costs. The second memorandum cites dozens of statutes but does not explain how any of them provides for an award of non-attorney fees to Plaintiff in this action. (Memo, filed 04/29/24, pp. 1-2.) This fails to comply with the requirements for a memorandum of points and authorities under the California Rules of Court. “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(b).)

Therefore, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a basis for an award of non-attorney fees.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Richard R. Zazueta’s Amended Motion to Recover Non-Attorney Fees is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.