Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 19STCV10285, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV10285    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 8, 2019, Maria Carrasco filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Tania Saroyan, alleging (1) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 151.04 and 151.10, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) unlawful business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.  On February 23 and 24, 2022, the Court tried the section 17200 cause of action first in a bench trial, and on May 2, 2022, the Court issued its Statement of Decision, finding in favor of Saroyan on the third cause of action.

On June 30, 2022, the Court granted Saroyan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the first and second causes of action because the Court’s May 2, 2022 ruling mooted the first and second causes of action.

On September 21, 2022, Saroyan filed a motion for attorney fees, and on September 22, 2022, she filed a proposed judgment of dismissal of the FAC.

On September 29, 2022, the Court noted that entry of judgment on the FAC did not appear proper at that time because Saroyan had a pending second amended cross-complaint (“SACC”) naming Carrasco as a cross-defendant.  The Court therefore set an Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Proposed Judgment and continued the hearing on the motion or attorney fees.  The Court permitted supplemental briefing on whether the Court may enter judgment on the FAC and award attorney fees, or whether the “one final judgment rule” precluded entry of judgment and attorney fees.

On October 7, 2022, Saroyan dismissed Carrasco as a cross-defendant on the SACC.

“There may be, in some circumstances, judgments for or against one or more of several plaintiffs or defendants in a single case (§578), but there is always one judgment that determines the rights of any one particular party or parties . . . vis a vis another party on the other side of the pleadings.”  (Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, 136.)  “A complaint and cross-complaint are treated as independent actions for most purposes, except with respect to the requirement of one final judgment.”  [Citation.]  ‘Where a complaint and cross-complaint involving the same parties have been filed, there is no final, appealable judgment until both have been resolved.  [Citation.]’  [Citation.]”  (Westamerica Bank v. MBG Indus., Inc (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 109, 132.)

With the dismissal of Saroyan’s cross-claims against Carrasco, a single judgment may now be entered between these two parties.  The Court will therefore enter judgment dismissing the FAC with prejudice.  Saroyan is ordered to file a proposed judgment within 5 days.  The proposed judgment should state only that the FAC is dismissed with prejudice and that Saroyan is the prevailing party entitled to costs per memorandum of costs and statutory or contractual attorney fees per noticed motion.

The Order to Show Cause is discharged.

A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Submission of Proposed Judgment is scheduled for 12/15/2022 (December 15, 2022) at 09:00 AM in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

On November 22, 2022, Carrasco filed a brief arguing that entry of judgment and an award of attorney fees was premature, and that Saroyan is not entitled to statutory attorney fees or costs.  Although captioned as a Consolidated Opposition to Motion for Attorney’s Fees and in Opposition to the Premature Hearing for Attorney’s Fees, it was filed according to the Court’s deadline for supplemental briefing regarding whether the “one final judgment rule” precluded entry of judgment and attorney fees at that time.  The brief did not fully address the merits of the motion for attorney fees and instead focused on the procedural issues identified by the Court; it appeared to be responsive to only the Court’s order and not to the motion itself.  Accordingly, the Court will continue the hearing on the motion for attorney fees so Carrasco can file an opposition on the merits of the motion.

The Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees is continued to 01/24/2023 (January 24, 2023) at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Carrasco may file an opposition no later than January 10, 2023, and Saroyan may file a reply no later than January 17, 2023.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 7th day of December 2022