Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00856, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV00856    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 8/27/23                                                                  TRIAL DATE: 4/8/24

Case #22CHCV00856

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

Motion filed on 7/3/23.

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendant Ha Nguyen

RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainants Amy Jam and Mohsen Hadad (also spelled Haddad by both Moving and Responding party)

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order awarding Cross-Defendant Ha Nguyen attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $10,928.21 as the prevailing party on a Special Motion to Strike.  

RULING: The motion is granted. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Ha Hoang Nguyen (Nguyen) and Defendants/Cross-Complainants Amy Jam (Jam) and Mohsen Hadad (Hadad)  regarding the rights to real property located at 20516 Shelley Lane, Porter Ranch, California 91326 (the Property).  Nguyen claims that she purchased the Property and agreed to let Jam and Hadad live there in exchange for rent.  Jam and Hadad claim that they entered an agreement with Nguyen whereby they would live at the property, manage it up and eventually split the proceeds from the sale of the property with Nguyen.  

On 10/12/22, Nguyen filed this action against Jam and Hadad for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Unjust Enrichment and (4) Declaratory Relief.  On 11/17/22, Jam and Hadad filed their Answer to the Complaint.  On 4/17/23, pursuant to their unopposed motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, Jam and Hadad filed a Cross-Complaint against Nguyen for: (1) Breach of Contract by Filing for Rent and Pleading Eviction, (2) Breach of Contract by Not Selling the Property and Not Paying Shares of Jam and Hadad, (3) Unjust Enrichment, (4) General Negligence, (5) Intentional Tort and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On 5/12/23, Nguyen filed and served a Special Motion to Strike seeking an order striking portions of the Cross-Complaint of Cross-Complainants Amy Jam and Mohsen Hadad which was granted on 6/7/23.  (See 6/7/23 Minute Order).  On 7/3/23, Nguyen filed and served the instant motion seeking an order awarding Cross-Defendant Ha Nguyen attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,928.21 as the prevailing party on a Special Motion to Strike.  No opposition or other response to the motion has been filed.

ANALYSIS

CCP 425.16(c) provides:

“(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), in any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover that defendant's attorney's fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.

(2) A defendant who prevails on a special motion to strike in an action subject to paragraph (1) shall not be entitled to attorney's fees and costs if that cause of action is brought pursuant to Section 11130, 11130.3, 54960, or 54960.1 of the Government Code, or pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 7923.100) of Part 4 of Division 10 of Title 1 of the Government Code. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent a prevailing defendant from recovering attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 7923.115, 11130.5, or 54960.5 of the Government Code.”

Nguyen’s counsel indicates that 27.16 hours of attorney time at $400/hour was spent researching and preparing the underlying special motion to strike, reviewing the opposition, preparing the reply and preparing for and appearing at the hearing.  (See Ames Decl.).  Additionally, Nguyen incurred $68.91 in costs associated with the underlying motion.  The Court finds the uncontested fees and costs to be reasonable.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.  Pursuant to CCP 425.16(c), Nguyen is awarded $10,928.21 in attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party on the Special Motion to Strike.