Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21GDCV00658, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 21GDCV00658    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

HELIX MEDIA LLC,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

NATALIE CLARK, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  21GDCV00658

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN AMENDED ORDER  

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

December 6, 2023

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff Helix Media LLC (“Plaintiff”) seeks the entry of an amended order awarding attorney’s fees against defendants Natalie Clark (“Clark”), Freya Holdings LLC (“Freya”), and Robert J. Winkler (“Winkler”). On May 15, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s request for fees relating to opposing Clark and Freya’s anti-SLAPP Motion. The fees were awarded against Clark, Freya, Winkler, and Gabriel Vadasz. Subsequently, on August 7, 2023, the Court vacated the fee award against Gabriel Vadasz on the grounds that he had not been involved in the anti-SLAPP and did not have notice of the fee motion. Plaintiff contends that an amended order clarifying the amount of the fee award and the parties against whom the award is entered is needed because their attempts to enforce the judgment have been unsuccessful. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that the order could not be registered as a sister-state judgment in New York and sheriffs in California counties “have expressed confusion.” (Taran Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)

Clark, Freya, and Winkler oppose the motion on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to modify the order while an appeal is pending. This argument is unpersuasive because it is based on an error in the proposed order submitted with Plaintiff’s moving papers, in which Plaintiff sought fees against Clark, Freya, and Winkler, jointly and severally, rather than jointly, as originally ordered by the Court. Plaintiff submitted a revised proposed order with its reply brief which states that Clark, Freya, and Winkler are jointly responsible for the fee award, which corrects the issue. By issuing an amended order, the Court is not changing any of its previous determinations, but clarifying them.

Clark, Freya, and Winkler also request the Court consider the possibility of reversal before issuing the amended order. This is essentially an attempt to re-argue the motion for fees. Accordingly, the Court disregards this portion of the opposition briefs. 

Plaintiff’s motion for an amended order is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted on November 28, 2023.

 

Dated this 6th day of December, 2023

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.