Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV13991, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 21STCV13991    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   December 16, 2024                                        

CASE NAME:           Sabag Holdings, LLC v. SoCal Building Ventures, LLC

CASE NO.:                21STCV13991

MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS (CCP § 720.260(C))

MOVING PARTY:  Third-Party Claimant Jason Caramanis, as Trustee for Ya-Ya Legacy Trust

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Sabag Holdings, LLC

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order awarding $19,218.50 in attorney’s fees and $1,361.33 in costs against Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On April 13, 2021, Plaintiff Sabag Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor”) filed a Complaint against  Defendant SoCal Building Ventures, LLC (“Defendant/Judgment Debtor”), and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive for: (1) Breach of Contract on Promissory Note; and (2) Common Count.  

On November 17, 2022, this Court entered Judgment pursuant to a Stipulation of Judgment and Order (“Stipulation for Judgment”), in favor of Judgment Creditor against Judgment Debtor in the amount of $9,000,000.00, including costs, interest, and attorney fees.  

On March 26, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed a Motion for Order Charging Interest of Judgment Debtor in Specified Entities which the court GRANTED.

On May 3, 2024, the court GRANTED Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff.

On May 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed Notice of Entry of Judgment on Third-Party Claim.

On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed Notice of Entry of Order Charging Interest of Judgment Debtor in Specific Entities.

On June 14, 2024, Jason Caramanis, as Trustee for Ya-Ya Legacy Trust (Caramanis) filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to CCP § 720.260(c). On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 9, 2024, Caramanis filed a reply.

LEGAL STANDARD:

Request for Judicial Notice

The court GRANTS Caramanis’ Request for Judicial Notice in its entirety. (Evid. Code § 452(d), (h); See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.) However, the court only takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)¿¿

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Attorney’s fees are recoverable when authorized by contract, statute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)¿¿ 

¿Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (a)(10), attorney fees when authorized by contract, statute or law are allowable as costs and may be awarded upon a noticed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(5).¿

A prevailing party may recover costs by filing a memorandum of costs.

¿ 

ANALYSIS:

Caramanis moves for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to CCP § 720.260(c).

Plaintiff  does not challenge the costs memorandum requesting $1,361.33 in costs.

Plaintiff does challenge the awarding of attorney fees contending that attorney fees are not recoverable under CCP § 720.260(c).

Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 720.260(c) provides:

“(c) An undertaking given by the creditor under this chapter shall:

(1) Be made in favor of the secured party or lienholder.

(2) Indemnify the secured party or lienholder against any loss, liability, damages, costs, and attorney's fees, incurred by reason of the enforcement proceedings.

(3) Be conditioned on a final judgment that the security interest or lien of the third person is entitled to priority over the creditor's lien.”

This statute does not authorize fees “incurred in the action on the undertaking.” (Franke v. BAM Building Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 224, 236.) This is the only means Caramanis moved to recover fees.[1] (Mot. 8:22-9:7.)

Accordingly, Caramanis’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is Granted in part and Denied in part.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      Costs awarded in the amount of $1,361.33.

2.      Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             December 16, 2024                 __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court