Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV24386, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.


Case Number: 21STCV24386    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

SOPHIE GOODIS AND NATALIE GOODIS,

 

                             Plaintiffs,

 

                              vs.

ERIC MIZRAHI, individually and as trustee of the BRIGITTE MIZRAHI 2019 IRREVOCABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST; and DOES 1-25,

 

                              Defendants.

Case No.:  21STCV24386

DEPARTMENT 45

 

 

 

[TENTATIVE] RULING

 

 

 

Action Filed:  07/01/21

Trial Date:  None set

 

Hearing date:  March 28, 2024

Moving Party:  Plaintiffs Sophie Goodis and Natalie Goodis

Responding Party:  None

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

The Court considered the moving papers.

            The motion is GRANTED in the amount of $129,341.25.

 

Background

            On July 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Sophie Goodis and Natalie Goodis (“Plaintiffs”) filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Eric Mizrahi, individually and as trustee of the Brigitte Mizrahi 2019 Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (“Defendant Mizrahi”); and DOES 1-25, for (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Conversion; (3) Money Had and Received; (4) Unjust Enrichment; and (5) Accounting.

 

            On October 23, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 28, 2023, this Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendant Mizrahi and awarded Plaintiffs: $112,876.93 in damages and $225,753.86 in double damages under Probate Code Section 859 plus $44,438.08 in prejudgment interest for a total award of $270,191.94.

 

            On November 15, 2023, Plaintiffs’ filed this instant Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. The opposition was due on March 15, 2024. As of March 25, 2024, no opposition has been filed.

 

Legal Standard

            Pursuant to Probate Code Section 859, “except as otherwise required by law, including Section 15657.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,” the person who has in bad faith wrongfully taken, concealed, or disposed of property belonging to a conservatee, a minor, an elder, a dependent adult, a trust, or the estate of a decedent, or has taken, concealed, or disposed of the property by using undue influence or commission of financial abuse, “may in the court’s discretion, be liable for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to any other remedies available in law to a person authorized to bring an action pursuant to this part.” (Prob. Code § 859.)

 

Discussion

            Plaintiffs move for an award of $136,091.25 in attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiffs in this case. Plaintiffs argue that California Probate Code Section 859 entitled them to attorneys’ fees. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue this Court determined in its Summary Judgment ruling that Defendant acted in bad faith by wrongfully taking or disposing of property belonging to the Trust. Plaintiffs further contend this Court determined they made a prima facie showing that they are entitled to relief under Probate Code Section 859. Moreover, Plaintiffs assert they incurred unnecessary attorneys’ fees solely because of Defendant’s bad faith actions. Plaintiffs contend Defendant breached his duty as Trustee by not acting in accordance with Plaintiffs’ mother’s Trust but actively took the Trust’s funds for personal gain immediately after receiving access to them. Plaintiffs also contend but for Defendant’s conduct they would not have been forced to filed this lawsuit and incur significant attorneys’ fees in pursuing their claims for over two years. As such, Plaintiffs assert they have incurred $129,341.25 in attorneys’ fees and estimate an additional $6,750.00 in fees to prosecute this Motion. (Ibrahim Decl., ¶ 6; Ex. F.)

 

            The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees as a matter of law. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ have provided evidence of the qualifications, hourly rates, and amount of time expended by its litigation team in securing judgment in their favor in this matter. However, the Court notes that this Motion is unopposed and was not complex in nature. Thus, the Court will impose $129,341.25 excluding the additional $6,750.00 in fees requested by Plaintiffs.

 

            Therefore, the motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED in the amount of $129,341.25.

 

            It is so ordered.

 

Dated: March 28, 2024

 

_______________________

ROLF M. TREU

Judge of the Superior Court