Judge Thomas Falls, Case 19PSCP00279 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Petitioner Med Tech/Med Care, LLC’s MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES is DENIED WITH prejudice.

On August 2, 2019, the court granted Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award and denied Respondent Hemosure, Inc’s (“Hemosure”) “Response to [Petitioner’s]” Notice of Hearing on Petition to Confirm Contractual Arbitration Award; Request to Vacate the Arbitration Award or in the Alternative to Correct Arbitration Award.”

On July 1, 2022, a Motion for Attorney Fees, which the court denied on December 8, 2022.

(i) many of the hours billed have nothing to do with the appeal; (ii) block billing makes it impossible to ascertain the reasonableness of fees; (iii) hours claimed are not reasonable, and (iv) petitioner seeks fees for duplicative work. In denying the motion, the court explicitly stated that upon refiling, Petitioner is to explain each of the court’s concern.

However, upon refiling, the motion still does not address the issues at all. Turning to the declaration of Richard M. Goldwasser (because the motion itself does not provide the answers), it again conclusively states that “The services reflected in Group Exhibit B were reasonable and necessary in handling the appeal.” (Goldwasser Decl., p. 2.)

Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED. As for denial with or without prejudice, the court emphasizes the fact that the December 8, 2022 tentative clearly laid out the issues that Petitioner was required to address upon refiling of the motion. Yet, despite ample time to meet this requirement, Petitioner seemingly ignored the court’s request, indicating a lack of due diligence in arguing the matter. Therefore, the motion is denied with prejudice.

[1] As presented in the appellate court’s decision, the facts of the case are as follows: “On December 1, 2016 Hemosure and Med Tech entered into a one-year independent sales representative agreement. Med Tech agreed to “aggressively promote the sale of [Hemosure’s] products, to service the customers and the distributors of the company . . . , and to make regular calls and in-person visits to these customers and on these distributors at acceptable intervals of time.” Hemosure agreed to pay Med Tech a commission on all net sales to medical distributors of Hemosure’s products upon invoice payments and verified tracings as provided by the distributors. The agreement contained an arbitration provision that stated, “Any dispute or disagreement arising out of or relating to this agreement or the relationship of the parties shall be settled by arbitration, according to the American Arbitration Association Rules, in Los Angeles, CA.”

[2] Though Respondent argues that the motion is untimely because it was filed after the 45-day limit prescribed by the court, the court does not elect to deny the motion on said grounds as the court did not give a specific date by which Petitioner was to refile its motion.