Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 21STCV24935 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV24935, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24935 Hearing Date: January 20, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Relief from the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Vacating Said Order, and Allowing a Corrected Motion to be Filed Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473

Moving Party: Plaintiff HCP MOP California, LP

Resp. Party: Defendant Stella Koletic

Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Vacating Said Order, and Allowing a Corrected Motion to be Filed Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473 is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On July 7, 2021, Plaintiff HCP MOP California, LP filed its Complaint against Defendants Stella Koletic, D.D.S., Inc. and Stella Koletic on causes of action of breach of written lease, account stated, money had and received, and breach of written guaranty.

On October 7, 2021, Defendant Stella Koletic, in propria persona, filed her Answer.

On January 3, 2022, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Defendant Stella Koletic, D.D.S., Inc. from the Complaint.

On February 18, 2022, Defendant filed her Amended Answer.

On September 7, 2022, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice the fourth cause of action for breach of written guaranty from the Complaint.

On September 13, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

On October 3, 2022, the Court issued Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $143,761.39.

On December 8, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Motion for Relief from the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Vacating Said Order, and Allowing a Corrected Motion to be Filed Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473. Plaintiff concurrently filed its Request for Judicial Notice.

On January 17, 2023, Defendant filed her Opposition.

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I. Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of numerous prior filings in this matter. (Request for Judicial Notice, ¶¶ 1–8.)

Judicial notice is DENIED as superfluous. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

II. Legal Standard

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

III. Discussion

Summarizing the situation:

(1) The Court awarded Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant;

(2) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees on the incorrect grounds;

(3) The Court issued a tentative order on the Motion for Attorney’s Fees;

(4) Instead of arguing the merits at the hearing on the Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Plaintiff took the motion off calendar and re-filed the motion on the correct grounds;

(5) The Court adopted its original tentative order on the basis of this conduct; and

(6) Plaintiff has now filed its Motion for Relief from the Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees based on Plaintiff’s Counsel’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Unlike the situation with defaults or dismissals, this is not a situation where Plaintiff did not have an opportunity to have a hearing on the merits. Plaintiff had an opportunity to have a hearing on the merits, chose instead to take the hearing off calendar, had another hearing on essentially the same motion, and is now asking for a third hearing. Also unlike the situation with defaults or dismissals, such relief in this situation is discretionary. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)

While the Court is sympathetic when parties and/or their counsel come before the Court and admit to a mistake, the Court also considers the prejudice this would have on the other parties to the matter.

Here, Defendant is representing herself pro per. Defendant is not the prevailing party and hence the Court is not able to award her attorney’s fees. (See Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179; Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021.) Nor is the Court able to award her attorney’s fees based upon Plaintiff’s mistake. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b) (“The court shall, whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault, direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.”) Yet Defendant has now repeatedly spent her time relitigating this issue, without any basis for relief. It would be significantly prejudicial to Defendant, and against the interests of justice, for the Court to grant the motion at hand.

“The court must, in every stage of an action, disregard any error, improper ruling . . . in the . . . proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” (CCP § 475. “The interests of justice are paramount in all legal proceedings. In short, justice is the sole justification of our law and courts.” (Moncharsch v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 34, Kennard, J., conc. and dis. [cleaned up].)

IV. Conclusion