Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV22710, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19STCV22710 Hearing Date: August 18, 2022 Dept: 54
|
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles | |||
|
La Shanda Frederick, |
Plaintiff, |
Case No.:
|
19STCV22710 |
|
vs. |
|
Tentative Ruling
| |
|
Joseph Belgarde and Evelyne Belgarde, |
Defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing Date: August 18, 2022
Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter
Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Moving Party: Plaintiff La Shanda Frederick
Responding Party: Defendants Joseph Belgarde and Evelyne Belgarde
T/R: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS DENIED.
PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.
The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.
This is a landlord-tenant action for wrongful eviction. The parties settled and Plaintiff dismissed the action on April 12, 2022.
ANALYSIS
CCP § 1021.5 provides, in pertinent part, “[u]pon motion, a court may award attorneys' fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if: (a) a significant benefit, whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary, has been conferred on the general public or a large class of persons, (b) the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity, are such as to make the award appropriate, and (c) such fees should not in the interest of justice be paid out of the recovery, if any.”
Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees under CCP § 1021.5. Plaintiff asserts that this action conferred a significant benefit on a large class of persons because it involved enforcement of federal law related to Section 8 housing subsidies. But Plaintiff provides no evidence or argument showing that this action has affected anyone other than Plaintiff, let alone conferred a “significant benefit” on anyone other than Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees under CCP § 1021.5.
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED.