Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV08408, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08408    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 26, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion for New Trial, Relief from Judgment, or to Vacate Judgment and Enter New Judgment

Moving Party:  Defendants Bedrock Protection of California, et al.

Responding Party:  Plaintiffs Robert Lamm and Benjamin Beckes

T/R:    DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT, OR TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND ENTER NEW JUDGMENT IS DENIED.

            DEFENDANTS 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, reply, and sur-reply.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Robert Lamm and Benjamin Beckes sued Defendants Bedrock Protection of California, LLC, Paul Nelson, Damien Scott, and Todd McGuire on March 3, 2020. The operative Second Amended Complaint, filed October 19, 2020, adds Bedrock Protection Agency LLC as a Defendant, and alleges causes of action for: 1. Failure to pay minimum wage (Lab. Code § 1194, 1194.2 and IWC Wage Orders); 2. Failure to pay overtime (Lab. Code §§ 510, 1194); 3. Failure to provide/authorize meal periods (Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512, IWC Wage Orders); 4. Failure to provide/authorize rest periods (Lab. Code §§ 226.7, 512, IWC Wage Orders); 5. Failure provide all wages upon discharge (Lab. Code §§ 201-203); 6. Failure to reimburse work-related expenses (Lab. Code § 2802); 7. Unfair Competition (B&P § 17200 et seq.); and 8. Breach of Contract.

After a bench trial, the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision on May 4, 2023. On January 18, 2024, the Court entered an Amended Judgment against Defendants Bedrock Protection Agency, LLC and Paul Nelson and in favor of Plaintiff Robert Lamm. The Amended Judgment awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiffs.

On February 2, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of intent to move for new trial. On February 14, 2024, Defendants filed the instant motion for new trial, relief from judgment, or to vacate judgment and enter judgment.

ANALYSIS

Defendants move for an order: (1) vacating the Amended Judgment entered on January 18, 2024 and entering new judgment; (2) relieving Defendant Bedrock from the Amended Judgment; or (3) setting a new trial on the issue of attorney’s fees. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ counsel had a conflict of interest with their clients which precludes his ability to collect attorney’s fees.  

A.        Procedural Issues

            1.         Motion for New Trial (CCP § 657)

            Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion for new trial is jurisdictionally defective because they failed to timely serve notice of intent to move for new trial pursuant to CCP § 657. That statute requires that the motion be filed within 15 days of the date of mailing notice of entry of judgment, or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is earliest. Counsel Drew Lewis’ declaration states that, although the proof of service for the Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial document includes the proper email, the service provider’s Electronic Service Notice states that he was served at an incorrect address. (Lewis Decl. ¶ 18.)

Defendants assert that the jurisdictional deadline has not elapsed because the notice of entry of judgment sent by the Court’s clerk did not satisfy CCP § 664.5. According to Defendants, the notice did not state that it was made on “order of the court” or “under section 664.5; as a result, the 180-day period, not the 15-day limit, applies. Defendant also argue that any failure to serve properly was Plaintiffs’ fault, for providing an incorrect email address to the electronic service provider.

In sur-reply,[1] Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have no basis for the assertion that Plaintiffs’ counsel directed the use of the incorrect email address for service. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendants’ own proof of service includes the correct email address.

The Amended Judgment was properly ordered by the Court. It states: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDICATED, AND DECREED…consistent with the Final Statement of Decision issued by the Court on May 4, 2023.” (1/18/24 Amended Judgment.) This is sufficient to comply with the notice rules.

Defendants failed to file their motion for new trial within 15 days. Defendants did not rebut Plaintiffs’ showing that the service provider’s electronic service notice includes an incorrect email address. The Court may not circumvent clear jurisdictional mandates. Defendants’ motion for new trial is denied on this ground.

            2.         Relief under CCP § 473

Plaintiffs argue that CCP § 473 cannot be used to circumvent statutory requirements that govern motions for new trials or to vacate judgments. Plaintiffs cite Advanced Building Maintenance v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1999) 49 Cal.App.4th 1388, where the Court of Appeal held that section 473 cannot be used to extend the filing deadline of a motion for new trial.

The Court has found that the motion for new trial was not timely filed; Defendants are not entitled to relief under CCP § 473.

3.         Motion to Vacate Court’s Judgment (CCP § 663)

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ motion to vacate should be denied because they failed to mention this basis for relief in their Notice of Motion. Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants did not fulfill the mandatory notice requirements under section 663a, which is a prerequisite for filing a motion under section 663.

Defendants fail to respond meaningfully to these arguments. But the motion was filed within 60 days after the court clerk mailed notice of entry of the amended judgment. The Court rejects these procedural arguments and will consider the merits.

B.        Substantive Arguments

            Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s counsel Lewis’s efforts to negotiate his fees directly with Defendants separate from any client settlement create a conflict of interest. They distinguish Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, which acknowledged an inherent conflict of interest in bifurcated settlement negotiations but did not categorically find such negotiations to be unethical. Defendants say that any attempt by Lewis to collect future contingency fees would be detrimental to the integrity of attorney-client relationships.

Plaintiffs contend that bifurcated negotiations can be appropriate where the client’s interests are not adversely affected. Plaintiffs assert there is no case or statute that obligates Plaintiffs to accept a global settlement offer, especially when counsel has advised that each Plaintiff should independently decide whether to accept their respective offers. This practice, they argue, is common in multi-plaintiff cases. Plaintiffs also contend that statutory fee awards are considered the property of the attorney who earned them unless an agreement specifies otherwise. And Plaintiffs say that even if an ethical breach were found California law allows attorneys to recover fees for services rendered before any such breach.

Defendants have not shown that counsel’s effort to negotiate attorney’s fees separately from Plaintiffs’ settlements requires vacating the judgment. As the Ramirez court held: “The parties may, if they wish, negotiate a separate settlement of damages and attorney fees. That settlement, however, should be approved by an impartial tribunal charged with the duty of determining whether or not a fair and reasonable balancing of the interests of the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney was reflected in the negotiations.” (Ramirez, supra, 21 Cal.App.4^th at 925.) There is no evidence here that the negotiations – which did not yield a settlement - impacted the attorneys’ fees ultimately awarded by the Court, or that Plaintiffs were prejudiced. Defendants have not shown any basis to vacate the judgment under section 663.