Motion to Compel Arbitration
For the reasons stated above, Kwok does not address the assignment allegations relied on to establish standing and, consequently, this portion of the motion is denied.
Additionally, the Court finds that the First Amended Complaint falls within the scope of leave to amend previously granted. (See ROA No. 78 and Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.)
57 Jack Mitchell Construction, Inc. vs. IM Painting, Inc.
25-01523321
1. Demurrer to Complaint 2. Motion to Strike Complaint
NO TENTATIVE RULING. Parties to Appear on Zoom or in person. 58 Palacios vs. Blue Link Wireless, LLC
25-01474388
Motion to Compel Arbitration
Tentative Ruling to be updated in the morning. 59 REYNOLDS REALTY ADVISORS, INC. vs. CAPITAL INSIGHTS
23-01359175
Motion for Attorney Fees
The unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees brought by Defendant Capital Insights is GRANTED, in the reasonable amount of $29,383.00.
“In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” (Civ. Code, §1717, subd. (a).)
“The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment.” (Civ. Code, §1717, subd. (b)(1).) “[T]he party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract. The court may determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section.” (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
This action sought to enforce a Property Management Agreement executed between Reynolds Realty Advisors, Inc. and Capital Insights. (See Exhibit A of Complaint [ROA No. 2].) Included within this agreement was a provision providing for the recovery of attorney fees. (Id. at ¶14.) Consistent with the above, Plaintiff requested attorneys’ fees in the Complaint. (¶11(g) of Complaint [ROA No. 2].)
Nonetheless, there has been no showing Defendant is the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees, pursuant to the Property Management Agreement as: (1) It is undisputed Defendant Capital Insight settled Plaintiff’s claim based on the