DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIV2301658·marin·Civil·Attorney Fee Dispute
Hearing about 2 months agoThe matter is dropped.

JEAN COYSTON, ET AL vs. BARBARA BOUCKE

Motion – Attorney’s Fees

Hearing date
Jul 10, 2026
Department
L
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jul 17, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$800.00

Parties

PlaintiffJEAN COYSTON, ET AL
DefendantBARBARA BOUCKE

Ruling

The court issued a tentative ruling on February 19, 2026. The tentative invites the Defendant to request a continuance to pursue discovery on the attorney fees claimed by Plaintiff’s counsel, who seeks fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420. The matter was called as regularly scheduled in this department on February 20, 2026, and Defendant requested a continuance to pursue discovery on the fee issue. The court also opened the inquiry into the reasonableness of Plaintiff counsel’s requested compensable hourly rate of $800.00.

The hearing was set for May 26, 2026, with the parties filing supplemental briefing on the fee issue. Plaintiff filed papers on April 17, and Defendant filed an opposition on May 4. The plaintiff’s filing triggered the court clerk to assign a new date for hearing on the fee motion. This was a clerical error.

The court entered an order on Plaintiff’s fee request on June 22, 2026.

The matter is dropped.

Should any party wish with contest the tentative, the matter will be heard on July 17, 2026, at 130 pm in this department.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are driving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share