Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV37275, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37275    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion to Fix Amount of Attorney’s Fees to be Awarded

Moving Party: Defendant David Carlin

Resp. Party:    None

        The Motion to Fix Amount of Attorney’s Fees to be Awarded is DENIED without prejudice.  

BACKGROUND:

On October 8, 2021, Plaintiffs Kristien Amer, Eileen Hirsch, Megan Klimkos, Marisa Westphal, Mary Danner, Nicholas Scheib, Adilya Kamiyeva, and Marlene Maro filed their Complaint against Defendants LA Valley Management, LLC, LA Valley Management Co, Mayfair Square, LLC, and David Carlin. This case regards causes of action arising from Plaintiffs’ tenancies with Defendants.

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint.

On April 27, 2023, Defendant LA Valley Management, LLC filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

On May 1, 2023, Defendant David Carlin filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

On May 2, 2023, Defendant LA Valley Management, LLC filed another Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

On May 4, 2023, Defendant Mayfair Square, LLC filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint.

On June 1, 2023, by request of Plaintiffs, the Clerk’s Office dismissed with prejudice all Plaintiffs except Plaintiff Kristien Amer (“Plaintiff”) from the First Amended Complaint.

        On January 23, 2024, Aaron Darsky (Plaintiff’s former counsel in this matter) filed Notice of Lien for Attorney Fees and Costs.

        On March 25, 2024, Defendant David Carlin filed Motion to Fix Amount of Attorney’s Fees to be Awarded. In support of the Motion, Defendant David Carlin concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Silvia C. Schaffer; and (2) Proposed Order.

        No opposition or other response has been filed to the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

        Defendant David Carlin requests that the Court limit the amount of attorney’s fees that can be awarded to a prevailing party in this matter to $500.00 based on an amount in a contract. (Motion, p. 5:18–21.)

        Plaintiff, who is litigating this matter in propria persona, has not opposed or otherwise responded to the Motion.

        Defendant Carlin is basically asking this Court for an advisory opinion. The prevailing party in this matter has not yet been determined, and the Court has not considered all of the arguments and evidence that could come at trial. Such a motion is not ripe for adjudication.

        The Motion to Fix Amount of Attorney’s Fees to be Awarded is DENIED without prejudice.