Sanchez vs. Namhy

mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of their office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. Service of a summons in this manner is deemed complete on the 10th day after the mailing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20(b).) “[T]he burden is upon the plaintiff to show reasonable diligence to effect personal service and each case must be judged upon its own facts.” (Evartt v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 795, 801.)

Here, Plaintiff submits a proof a service declaration from Steven Hurtado who attests to serving a copy of the summons and complaint by “depositing the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service with the postage fully prepaid.” (ROA 12, ¶ 3(a).) Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his burden of showing reasonable diligence in attempting personal service prior to using substitute service. Thus, Defendant’s Motion is granted on this ground. 10 24-01397948 Motion for Discovery

Sanchez vs. Namhy Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $19,596.60.

Plaintiffs seek an award of $23,789.40, comprised of $13,976.00 in fees, $5,620.60 in costs, and a lodestar multiplier of 1.30 in the amount of $4,192.80.

There is no dispute Plaintiffs are entitled to fees and costs, but Defendants contend the fees are excessive. Defendants suggest $5,444.75 would be appropriate.

Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that the hourly attorney rate sought is reasonable. (Christian Research Institute v. Alnor (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1320.) In challenges to the reasonableness of the number of hours billed, “it is the burden of the challenging party to point to the specific items challenged, with a sufficient argument and citations to the evidence.” (Premier Med. Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. Cal.Ins. Guarantee Ass’n (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 550, 564.) “General arguments that fees claimed are excessive, duplicative, or unrelated do not suffice.” (Id.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel billed for 33.5 hours of work, inclusive of the time spent on the present motion, reply and attending the hearing, at rates between $295-575/hour for attorneys and $145/hour for paralegals. (Kirnos Decl., Ex. A at p. 7.)

Given that this case was ongoing for almost 2.5 years before it settled, which included written discovery, four depositions and two mediations, the court finds the hours Plaintiffs spent litigating this matter are

reasonable. The court also finds the hourly rates are reasonable for this type of litigation in the local legal community.

The court declines to award a multiplier because Plaintiffs have not shown this case was particularly novel or complex.

Defendants contend Plaintiffs’ costs are unsubstantiated and unreasonable because Plaintiffs failed to attach supporting documentation. However, Plaintiffs filed a verified memorandum of costs on 12/5/25 (ROA 79), which is also attached to Plaintiffs’ supporting declaration (Kirnos Decl., Ex. B). The memorandum of costs appears to include proper costs for filing, jury fees, deposition costs, service of process, and other litigation expenses. Where items appear on their face to be proper charges, the verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence of their propriety, and the burden is on the party opposing the costs to show they were not reasonable or necessary. (Jones v.

Dumrichob (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1266.) Defendant fails to do so. Defendant also failed to file a motion to strike or tax costs; the deadline to do so has long since passed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1700(b)(1).) Therefore, the request for costs in the amount of $5,620.60 is granted.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff shall recover fees in the amount of $13,976.00 and costs in the amount of $5,620.60. 11 25-01458863 1) Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) 2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Satin vs. HH Law Firm Interrogatories 3) Motion to Compel Production 4) Motion to Compel Production

Motion #1

The motion of plaintiff Ken Satin for an order compelling defendant HH Law Firm to serve a further response to the first set of special interrogatories is CONTINUED to __________________, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C33. Counsel for both parties are directed to meet and confer “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference” and specifically discuss the set of special interrogatories and the answers and objections. After that session, counsel for both parties are to submit a joint statement detailing the efforts they engaged in and setting forth the items still in dispute. This joint statement is to be filed no later than 10 days before the continued hearing.

Discussion. Plaintiff Ken Satin moves under Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a) for an order compelling defendant HH Law Firm to serve a further response without objection to the first set of special interrogatories. Although the caption of the motion references a request for a monetary sanction, the notice of motion does not contain such a request, which is required for sanctions to be awarded. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.040. Defendant opposes the motion and asks for a monetary sanction against plaintiff.