Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2021-00005689-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2021-00005689-CU-BC-CTL HATLEVIG VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Attorney Fees, 08/31/2023

Plaintiff Matthew Hatlevig's Motion for Attorney's Fees is DENIED.

Defendant argues that the motion was served long after the 180-day statutory requirement for serving a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)(1) [the motion 'must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108'] [emphasis added]; id., rule 8.104(a)(1).) The court agrees that the motion is untimely.

On June 2, 2023, upon learning from Plaintiff's counsel that the case had settled, the court ordered that dismissal be filed within 45 days. (ROA 119.) That order is consistent with the settlement agreement which required Plaintiff to file a 'request for dismissal with prejudice of the entire lawsuit as against all defendants executed by counsel for plaintiff.' (ROA 124, Barry Decl., Ex. 4 [Settlement Agreement], § 2.a.iii; see also id., § 2 [contemplating that closing would be accomplished within 45 days].) It is also consistent with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1385 which provides that 'the court must dismiss the entire case 45 days after it receives notice of settlement unless good cause is shown why the case should not be dismissed.' (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1385(b) [emphasis added]; id., rule 3.1385(c) [same in context of conditional settlement].) No dismissal was filed within 45 days (i.e., by July 17, 2023). Accordingly, the court issued a notice of dismissal stating that the case would be deemed dismissed on August 15, 2023 unless either party (1) first filed a judgment or dismissal; or (2) appeared ex parte showing good cause as to why the case should not be dismissed. (ROA 122.) August 15, 2023 came and went with no party taking any action; thus, this action was deemed dismissed as of that date. On August 31, 2023, over two weeks after the case was dismissed, Plaintiff filed its motion for attorney's fees. (ROA 124.) Plaintiff did not serve this motion until April 4, 2024 (ROA 129 [Proof of Service].) Plaintiff argues that because there was no entry of judgment or voluntary dismissal, and the Register of Actions identifies the case status as 'Stay conditional settlement,' the deadline for filing the fee motion was never triggered, and Plaintiff was only required to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) in filing the fee motion. Plaintiff offers no authority or argument as to why the case should not be deemed to have been dismissed as of August 15, 2023, or as to how it can properly file pleadings in a case that has been dismissed. Moreover, the effect of Plaintiff's argument is that it can extend the time to file a fees motion in perpetuity by violating court orders that it file a dismissal within 45 days or show cause why it has not done so. The court rejects this unsupported and counterintuitive proposition.

Regardless of what the 'case status' indicates, this case was dismissed on August 15, 2023, since no Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042030  5 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  HATLEVIG VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2021-00005689-CU-BC-CTL cause was shown why it should not be. There was, therefore, no pending case in which Plaintiff could file its motion for fees over two weeks later. Even giving Plaintiff the benefit of the full 180 days after that date, Plaintiff had until February 12, 2024 to file and serve their fees motion (180 days after August 15, 2023 fell on February 11, 2024, which was a Sunday). Plaintiff did not serve its motion until April 4, 2024, nearly a year after settlement had been reached, and approximately 8 months after the case had been dismissed. Thus, even if it were possible for the court to consider a motion filed in a case after it had already been dismissed, the court would be compelled to deny the present motion as untimely. The court notes as well that the only apparent reason why a party would wait months after filing a motion to serve it is to inconvenience the opposing party by minimizing to the greatest extent possible the time available to oppose the motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3042030  5