Ally Bank vs. Bashir

“Attorney’s fees are not available to a prevailing litigant absent a contractual agreement or statutory authorization....” (Abbett Electric Corp. v. California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 355, 358.) Here, as Wild Rivers has neither identified an applicable statute which provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees, nor demonstrated that it is the prevailing party on a contract with an attorney fee provision, the motion for attorney fees must be DENIED.

57 Austin vs. Hyundai Motor America

25-01257746

1. Motion for Attorney Fees 2. Motion to Strike or Tax Costs

The Court intends to post a Tentative Ruling in the morning. 58 Ally Bank vs. Bashir

26-01538983

Application/Request

Plaintiff Ally Bank’s unopposed Application for Writ of Possession against Defendant Ibrahim Bashir for the 2015 BMW I8 motor vehicle, Serial No. WBY2Z2C55FV392288 (the “Vehicle”) is GRANTED.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Ibrahim Bashir to turn over to Plaintiff the Vehicle which is believed to be located at 5517 Sugar Maple Way, Fontana, CA 92336. The failure to turn over the Vehicle to Plaintiff may subject Defendant to being held in contempt of court. The Court waives the requirement for Plaintiff to post an undertaking since the amount owed is higher than the estimated value of the Vehicle.

Defendant’s re-delivery bond shall be $42,977.25.

Moving Party is to give notice.

60 Hernandez vs. Dieterich

22-01246551

Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Defendant George Ahad, M.D.’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Defendant Dr. Ahad moves for summary judgment, only. The request for summary judgment is improper as this motion does not seek to dispose of all causes of action asserted against Defendant in the Complaint by Plaintiff. (Miles Laboratories, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 587, 593 [“A defendant moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a factual showing negating the existence of all causes of action on all theories embodied in the complaint and if he fails to discharge that burden, the motion must be denied”]; Lopez v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705, 717 [a moving defendant has the burden to show it is entitled to judgment with respect to all theories of liability asserted by the plaintiff].)