Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV667151, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV667151    Hearing Date: September 26, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Mehdi Saidane and Mimi Saidane (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action on June 30, 2017 against Defendants Patrick Khalafian, Dertad Teddy Bedjakian (“Bedjakian”), and 168 Entertainment, LLC (“168 Entertainment”). Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Complaint on July 3, 2018, asserting causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) breach of contract, and (3) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

On February 15, 2023, the Court issued a Judgment on Special Verdict in this matter. The Judgment on Special Verdict notes, inter alia, that this action came on regularly for trial on January 13, 2023. The Judgment further provides that “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Plaintiffs MIMI SAIDANE and MEHDI SAIDANE take nothing as against Defendants DERTAD TEDDY BEDJAKIAN, and 168 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, on Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and that Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant 168 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, as to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract, and as to the Second Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and that Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant DERTAD TEDDY BEDJAKIAN as to the Third Cause of Action for Intentional Misrepresentation.” (Judgment at p. 10:1-8.)

Bedjakian and 168 Entertainment (the “Moving Defendants”) move “for a determination that defendants DERTAD TEDDY BEDJAKIAN and 168 ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, were each a prevailing party at trial and for an award of their reasonable attorney’s fees as an item of costs, pursuant to Civil Code, section 1717, and for an award of other items of cost.” Plaintiffs oppose.

On July 6, 2023, the Court issued an Order continuing the hearing on the instant motion to July 28, 2023. The Court’s July 6, 2023 Order provides, inter alia, that “the Court will require further evidence concerning the attorney’s fees incurred by 168 Entertainment’s counsel solely on behalf of 168 Entertainment. In addition, the Court will require evidence regarding 168 Entertainment’s counsel’s requested hourly billing rate.” (Order at p. 11:17-20.)

On July 28, 2023, the Court issued an Order continuing the hearing on the instant motion again. The Court’s July 28, 2023 Order provides, inter alia, that “the Court will require further evidence and calculations from the Moving Defendants” in light of the discussion set forth in the Order. (Order at p. 5:18.) The Court ordered that any supplemental declaration by the Moving Defendants is to be filed and served by August 18, 2023, and that Plaintiffs’ response, if any, is to be filed and served by September 8, 2023.

On August 18, 2023, the Moving Defendants filed a “Second Supplemental Declaration of Thomas J. Kostos in Support of Defendant 168 Entertainment, LLC’s Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorney’s Fees as an Item of Costs.” On September 8, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a second supplemental opposition to the motion for attorney’s fees. 

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiffs object to, inter alia, the entirety of the Second Supplemental Declaration of Thomas J. Kostos on the basis that it is unsigned. The Court sustains the objection. The Court notes that Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 “defines a ‘declaration” as a writing that is signed, dated, and certified as true under penalty of perjury.” (Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 601, 606.)

 Discussion

In light of the foregoing ruling on Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objection, the Second Supplemental Declaration of Thomas J. Kostos is not competent evidence that the Court may consider herein.

The Court’s previous July 28, 2023 Order on the instant motion indicates, inter alia, that “Plaintiffs also note that Mr. Kostos deducted certain billing entries to include a ‘168 Entertainment portion.’…However, as noted by Plaintiffs, not all of the entries are deducted by 50%. For those items that are not deducted by 50%, it is not clear from Mr. Kostos’s supplemental declaration how he determined the portions allocable to 168 Entertainment. In addition, as Plaintiffs note, for many of the time entries, 100% of the amount is requested, even though such entries do not indicate that they pertain solely to 168 Entertainment.” (July 28, 2023 Order at p. 5:6-12.) The Court noted that it would thus “require further evidence and calculations from the Moving Defendants. The Court notes that for those billing entries pertaining to both 168 Entertainment and Bedjakian, 50% shall be deducted from such entries. Mr. Kostos’s supplemental declaration has not demonstrated why a lesser amount should be deducted from such entries. The Court notes that this does not apply to Mr. Kostos’s billing entries dated 10/18/2018, 10/19/2018, 12/15/2018, 12/17/2018, 3/18/2019, and 3/22/2019 (discussed above), which solely pertain to 168 Entertainment. In addition, this does not apply to the billing entries dated 4/11/2019, 4/12/2019, 5/01/2019, and 5/02/2019 pertaining to the depositions of Plaintiffs, which, as discussed above, are deducted in their entirety.” (July 28, 2023 Order at p. 5:18-26.) 

Thus, as discussed in the Court’s July 28, 2023 Order, the Court required further evidence and calculations from the Moving Defendants. Accordingly, and in view of the sustained objection, the motion is denied.

///

The moving defendants are to provide notice of this ruling.¿

DATED:  September 26, 2023                       ________________________________

Hon. Rolf M. Treu

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court