Motion for terminating sanctions
contingency cases as a class. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1138 (Ketchum).) The aim is to compensate attorneys at fair market value as an inducement to accept these cases. (Id.) “A trial court should award a multiplier for exceptional representation only when the quality of representation far exceeds the quality of representation that would have been provided by an attorney of comparable skill and experience billing at the hourly rate used in the lodestar calculation. Otherwise, the fee award will result in unfair double counting and be unreasonable. Nor should a fee enhancement be imposed for the purpose of punishing the losing party.” (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1139.)
The Court further has the discretion to adjust the lodestar downward where appropriate. (Ketchum, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 1132, Chavez v. Netflix, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 43, 64.)
The representation of Plaintiffs did not exceed the quality of representation that would have been provided by an attorney of comparable skill and experience billing at the hourly rates reviewed above because the action did not involve any novel and difficult issues of law. The legal and factual issues presented were straightforward. Counsels’ declarations also did not present any facts to show that they were precluded from taking on other employment. The only element established by Plaintiffs, relevant to multipliers, is that Counsels took the case on a contingency basis.
However, showing only one of three factors is insufficient to award a multiplier. Because of these facts, the Court is not persuaded that a fee enhancement is awardable in this case. Plaintiffs’ request for a fee enhancement is unpersuasive. Plaintiffs’ request for a 1.5 multiplier is DENIED. The motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED at the reduced amount of $26,538.00. NTA is awarded $12,978.00. Wirtz is awarded $13,560.00. IT IS SO ORDERED, CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.
Neamati v Elite Property Management
E x parte application to continue trial set in August. This case was filed Jan. 2025. Defendant Elite Property appeared in the case in June 2025. Car Park appeared May 2026. Kadima appeared May 2026. Good cause is shown. The court grants the application to continue and will set Trial and FSC in April 2027. Discovery cutoffs will apply per the new trial date and will remain open. NO FURTHER CONTINUANCES. Case Number: 25VECV01167 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: T
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?”
25VECV01167 DIAZ V GM
GM?s motion for terminating sanctions: Failure to comply with the court’s 2/26/2026 order compelling plaintiff to appear for deposition on 3/12/2026 (or any other date agreeable to both sides.)
The history reported by moving party is: “On February 26, 2026, the Court granted GM?s Motion for Compliance and Request for Sanctions. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 4; Exh. A.) The Court ordered Plaintiff sit for deposition on March 12, 2026 or a date agreeable to the parties. (Id.) The parties agreed on March 9, 2026 and on this date, counsel for GM signed onto zoom at the agreed upon time of 11 a.m. At this time, counsel for Plaintiff signed on and requested a delayed start of 11:30 a.m. At 11:39 a.m., counsel for GM emailed counsel for Plaintiff stating that everyone was signed onto Zoom and waiting for Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.
Counsel for Plaintiff did not respond to this email until 11:55 a.m. stating she signed on shortly after counsel for GM must have signed off. Plaintiff’s counsel requested to reschedule for a Monday and GM agreed to the date of March 16, 2026 at 11 a.m. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 5; Exh. B.) On March 11, 2026, despite agreeing to the deposition date of March 12, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel served an objection to the Amended Notice of Deposition for Plaintiff to appear on March 12, 2026. The objection however stated that Plaintiff would be produced for deposition. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 6; Exh.
C.) On March 8, 2026, March 13, 2026 and March 16, 2026, counsel for GM emailed Plaintiff’s counsel for the required initial disclosures in order to meaningfully prepare for and conduct Plaintiff’s scheduled deposition. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 7; Exh. D.) On March 16, 2026 at 11 a.m., which was the most recent agreed upon deposition date and time, counsel for GM signed onto Zoom once again. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear. Counsel for GM went on the record at 11:20 a.m., having not heard from Plaintiff’s counsel and took a non-appearance. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 8; Exh.
E.)?
No opposition has been filed by 5/14/2026. The history reveals failure to comply with the court’s order and then multiple failures to appear are scheduled. Plaintiff also failed to timely comply with statutory disclosure requiring a motion to compel. This is discovery abuse without substantial justification. The motion for terminating sanctions is granted. The 1 st Amended Complaint filed on 8/12/2025 is stricken, the case is dismissed with prejudice. Because the court is granting terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions are not awarded. Defendants are the prevailing parties. Costs per Memorandum of Costs. Because the court is dark on 5/15/2026, this tentative ruling is posted on Thursday for Monday's hearing. It is so ordered, Clerk to give notice. Case Number: 25VECV06912 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: T
25VECV06912 SHAMS V SEEN
The court grants the request and will sign the judgment. Home -->)" -->