Judge Thomas Falls, Case 20PSCV00094 2022-10-18 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. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

PLAINTIFF AGILECAP, LLC'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ENTER JUDGMENT AS AGAINST DEFENDANTS AI LING LEE, CHENG EN LEI AND LLT INSURANCE MARKETING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,129.89 PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §664.6

This case is about a loan repayment. Plaintiff AgileCap makes the following allegations against defendants: Plaintiff is a Utah based lender specializing in loan services to insurance brokers. Defendant Linda Lee, on behalf of Jubilee Professional Services, borrowed money from AgileCap, and as security, assigned any and all right to and interest in commissions from Insurance Carriers to AgileCap under Security and Assignment Agreements. Jubilee Professional Services and Linda Lee breached the Loan agreement by failing to make loan payments to AgileCap. Then, Linda Lee closed Jubilee Professional Services to avoid repayment of the Loan, including any interest in commissions under the Security and Assignment Agreements.

On April 2019, AgileCap obtained its California Judgment as against Defendant Linda Lee in the amount of $107,413.18, plus post judgment interest, in the matter known as AgileCap, LLC v. Lee, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19PSCP00148.

On January 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant action, which concerned Defendants’ fraudulent transfers of monies to prevent collection and/or enforcement of Agile Cap’s Judgment.

On September 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Stipulated Judgment.

CCP §¿664.6 provides, “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

On or about September 14, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a written Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release ("Settlement Agreement") in connection with this action in order to resolve the action. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiff the total sum of $62,500, and Plaintiff agreed to defer collection and recovery of over $106,000 due, as long as full and timely payments were made pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

Defendants, however, have defaulted on the Settlement Agreement by failing to make their payment obligations. The parties’ Settlement Agreement required Defendants to pay Plaintiff $62,5000, and of that amount, Defendants have paid Plaintiff $37,750. The following payments remain unpaid:

Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that judgment should be entered in the amount of $84,129.89 [$106,000 - any amounts paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement ($37,750) + $15,879.89 in attorneys' fees and costs].

Here, the court can and only takes issue with the attorney fees. While the Settlement Agreement allows for recovery of fees, it only allows for the recovery of reasonable fees. The declaration of Counsel Golden provides the following:

From September 15, 2020 to August 1, 2022, approximately 25 hours of attorneys' fees were reasonably incurred by Plaintiff AgileCap in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement, Stipulated Judgment, and/or enforcement of the Settlement. Plaintiff has additionally incurred approximately 8 hours of additional attorneys' fees in conjunction with the instant Motion. In addition, Plaintiff incurred $204.83 in costs, including Lexis Nexis fees ($1 07.39), one legal filing fees ($63.71), LA Court Connect fees ($30), copies ($1.80) and postage ($1.93). The total amount for attorneys' fees (33 hours x $475 = $15,675) and costs ($204.83) is $15,879.89.

Utilizing a Lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $8,604.83 (i.e., 28 hours[1] at $300/hour=$8,400 + costs).

Therefore, the court GRANTS the motion, but requests Plaintiff submit a modified proposed order changing the attorney fees and costs from $15,879.89 to $8,604.83, for a total judgment of $59,645.17 [$106,000 - $37,750 - $8,604.83].

[1] Notably, as explained by Plaintiff’s Counsel(s), the communications were limited to requests for repayment and did not involve substantial, if any, substantive legal work. As for the instant motion, the court finds 8 hours inflated as it is a straightforward motion and unopposed.