Motion for Attorney’s Fees
CASE NUMBER: 26CH-0210350 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Attorney’s Fees: Respondent Dustin McCracken moves for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to CCP § 527.6(s). The motion is procedurally defective.
Procedural Defects: The Notice of Motion identifies two different hearing dates. The caption identifies the hearing date as July 20, 2026. The body of the Notice identifies the hearing date as July 13, 2026. The proof of service is also defective. It identifies the person served as “Tyler Maize Lalaguna,” who is in fact the individual that served the motion. Based on these defects, Petitioner objects to the motion and request it be denied due to the notice issues. Petitioner’s opposition was untimely and fails to provide any evidence that he was prejudiced or actually mislead by the discrepancies. Petitioner’s opposition also admits that motion was actually received by the Petitioner. The Court finds that the motion is procedurally defective; however, the defects are curable. The Court will continue the matter for proper notice/service.
Lack of Evidence: The motion is supported by the Declaration of Tyler Lalaguna to justify the amount of the 3
requested attorney’s fees and costs. The declaration is defective. The declaration was not signed under penalty of perjury and therefore the Court has no evidence to support the requested relief. The defect is easily curable.
In light of the foregoing defects, the Court continues this matter to Monday, August 31, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Department 63. The matter will be heard on the Court’s normal 11:00 civil harassment restraining order calendar. Respondent shall file and timely serve an Amended Notice of Hearing for the continued hearing date. Respondent shall also file and timely serve an amended declaration signed under penalty of perjury. Petitioner can file a supplemental opposition nine court days prior to the continued hearing date. Respondent can file a supplemental reply five court days prior to the continued hearing date. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
BUTLER, III VS. SHOEMAKER
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?”