Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 18STCV04021, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 18STCV04021    Hearing Date: October 24, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Belinda Candelaria

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Robert Del Real, in his capacity as successor trustee of the Paul Ramos Trust dated June 21, 2018

Motion for Order Apportioning Costs of Partition, Including Reasonable Attorney’s Fees

The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this motion.  No reply papers were filed.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants defendant Belinda Candelaria’s request for judicial notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Belinda Candelaria (“Defendant”) filed the pending motion for an order apportioning costs of partition, including reasonable attorney’s fees, on February 20, 2024, moving the court for an order apportioning to Defendant attorney’s fees in the amount of $48,544.

In his opposition papers, and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and the court’s order filed on May 13, 2024, plaintiff Robert Del Real, in his capacity as successor trustee of the Paul Ramos Trust dated June 21, 2018 (“Plaintiff”), requests that the court award him attorney’s fees in the amount of $38,966.66.  (Sibbison Decl., ¶ 6; May 13, 2024 Stip. & Order, pp. 1:24-2:5 [stipulating that Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion shall include Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs].)

The court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that he has served the opposition papers on Defendant because the proof of service attached thereto is defective.

Plaintiff’s proof of service states that the opposition papers were served on counsel for Defendant by email at the email address “nmccall@schauerlaw.com.”  (Opp., p. 26:11, 26:19-21 [proof of service of opposition].)  However, this appears to be an incorrect email address for Defendant’s counsel.  While the court notes that Defendant’s filings do not set forth counsel’s email address, Defendant has attached copies of emails exchanged between counsel, which show that Defendant’s counsel’s email address is “nmccall@rschauerlaw.com.”  (McCall Decl., Ex. A, PDF pp. 7 [September 1, 2023 email listing counsel’s email address in signature line], 8 [August 28, 2023 email listing counsel’s email address in signature line] [emphasis added].)

Thus, Plaintiff has not shown that he has served Defendant with his opposition papers, which request an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and the court’s order thereon, on Defendant at her counsel’s correct email address.  Moreover, Defendant has not filed reply papers with the court, such that it appears that Defendant might not have been served with Plaintiff’s opposition.

The court finds that it is appropriate, and therefore exercises its discretion, to continue the hearing on Defendant’s motion in order to ensure that Defendant is served with, and may reply to, Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion.

ORDER

            The court orders that the hearing on defendant Belinda Candelaria’s motion for order apportioning costs of partition, including reasonable attorney’s fees, is continued to January 13, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 53.

            The court orders defendant Belinda Candelaria to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 24, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court